Eastern Hinduism Shankara

[Anonymous No.14956030]

>god be real
>thus only god be real; rest not be real

Why though?

Why is his system so loved here?

[Anonymous No.14956047]

>shankara

Cringe. All scholars and 95%+ of Hindus consider Shankara to be crypto-buddhism. You're better off reading about real Hinduism, not this neovedanta theosophy revivalist bullshit.

[Anonymous No.14956063]

>>14956047
>real Hinduism
What schools would you recommend? From my research, Advaita seems the most orthodox Hinduism.

[Anonymous No.14956095]

>>14956063
Any form of Hinduism actually practiced in India, by people other than Westernized neovedantists. The only remaining advaitins left in India are the lingering remnants of theosophy-influenced neovedanta. They are almost entirely upper class westernized expats who are barely Indian themselves. There's a reason why most advaita adherents don't live in India and aren't Indian. It's not Hindu.

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

>Goodrick-Clarke wrote that "educated Indians" were particularly impressed by the Theosophists' defense of their ancient religion and philosophy in the context of the growing self-consciousness of the people, directed against the "values and beliefs of the European colonial powers." Ranbir Singh, the "Maharajah of Kashmir" and a "Vedanta scholar", sponsored Blavatsky and Olcott's travels in India. Sirdar Thakar Singh Sandhanwalia, "founder of the Singh Sabha," became a master ally of the Theosophists.[55][note 16] Prof. Stuckrad noted the wave of solidarity which covered the Theosophists in India had powerful "political implications." He wrote, citing in Cranston's book, that, according to Prof. Radhakrishnan, the philosopher and President of India, the Theosophists "rendered great service" by defending the Hindu "values and ideas"; the "influence of the Theosophical Movement on general Indian society is incalculable."[57]

>Bevir wrote that in India Theosophy "became an integral part of a wider movement of neo-Hinduism", which gave Indian nationalists a "legitimating ideology, a new-found confidence, and experience of organisation." He stated Blavatsky, like Dayananda Sarasvati, Swami Vivekananda, and Sri Aurobindo, "eulogised the Hindu tradition", however simultaneously calling forth to deliverance from the vestiges of the past. The Theosophical advocacy of Hinduism contributed to an "idealisation of a golden age in Indian history." The Theosophists viewed traditional Indian society as the bearer of an "ideal religion and ethic."[26]

>In Prof. Olav Hammer's opinion, Blavatsky, trying to ascribe the origin of the "perennial wisdom" to the Indians, united "two of the dominant Orientalist discourses" of hers era.

If you like Advaita, you're just a Buddhist with Atman tacked on. Just be a Buddhist, it has much richer epistemology and you don't have to associate with western theosophists and live in constant denial about being a fake Hindu living in fucking Florida.

[Anonymous No.14956146]

>>14956030
Advaita Vedanta = the last refugee of the Atman

[Anonymous No.14956217]

Is Hinduism Buddhism with atman tacked on or is Buddhism Hinduism with atman tacked off? Use your own experience of reality and create a new religion, cause words are the truth to most people. Hehehe these words tickle my ears. This song sounds better than yours. What do you mean they are both Birds?

[Anonymous No.14956263]

>>14956217
>Is Hinduism Buddhism with atman tacked on or is Buddhism Hinduism with atman tacked off?
Now obviously there are sects in both religions that are entirely incompatible, like the more theistic and dualistic forms of Hinduism.
But with regard to Advaita Vedanta and Mahayana Buddhism I find that it's most a question of semantics and posturing than anything else.
And Tantric versions of Hinduism and Buddhism the differences are even more blurred as the metaphysics become mere window dressing and the esoteric rituals become central.

[Anonymous No.14956312]

why are all hindus either no poo in the lou indians or pic related?

[Anonymous No.14956320]

>>14956047
>>14956095
reminder that Buddhism is a post-upanishadic sect with revolutionary intentions

[Anonymous No.14956328]

>>14956095
You're so worried about labels and associations it's totally cringe. You can appreciate shankara and repudiate blavatsky et al, every Hindu and buddhist sect will have charlatans and gurus peddling shit who just wanna trick people or bang gullible followers

[Anonymous No.14956482]

>>14956030
>Why though?
Because the Upanishads say so, they contain various passages which deny the reality of multiplicity, changes etc while emphasizing the reality of God alone. If you'd like I can quote some of them.
>Why is his system so loved here?
I find it to be fascinating and wonderfully inspiring to read. Have you tried reading any of his works yet or have you only read about him elsewhere? His writing is very lucid and logical.
>>14956063
Advaita is one of the most orthodox schools, the person you are speaking with is a mentally unstable buddhist who has a burning resentment for Advaita and who posts his cringe rants and copypastas in virtually every thread about Hinduism etc, it's best to just ignore him.

[Anonymous No.14956598]

Can someone give me a quick run down on the Hindu / Advaita / Buddhist hostilities

[Anonymous No.14956613]

>>14956312
>why is the made up term that literally means the "religions of india" practiced by Indians?
powerful question.

[Anonymous No.14956615]

>>14956312
Fucking hot as hell. Good God, /lit/, are you going to start gay thirstposting? That will be quite hard (no pun intended) for nofap queers like myself...

[Anonymous No.14956623]

>>14956598
zen is actually amazing though

[Anonymous No.14956642]

Disregard advaita.

Read the Upanishads, Baghavad Gita, Yoga Sutras, Vigyan Bhairav Tantra, Siva Sutras, Spanda Karika, Doctrine of Recognition, and Abhinavagupta.


Also most scholars recognize cross-pollination without being butthurt so ignore these assblasted fags.

[Anonymous No.14956649]

>>14956598
Therava Buddhism is just another word for Buddhism.
Mahayana "Buddhism" is Hinduism in denial.

[Anonymous No.14956654]

>>14956598
Prepare for hot takes but basically all are quite similar and dogmatic adherents often wish to denigrate the paths of others.

[Anonymous No.14956670]

Reading Mahayana "Buddhist" "philosophers" (apologists) trying to rationalize ritualism and deity worship is very cringe.
The Buddha was just against these sort of things.
Also the Mahayana sutras are Marvel Comics tier cape shit bs.

[Anonymous No.14956684]

no idea
then they accuse us of saying the same thing

[Anonymous No.14956687]

Nice b8 there are many more distinction between the two spiritualities and just "atman."

[Anonymous No.14956707]

>>14956670
No he wasn't.
He just said they don't lead to moksha.
There's nothing wrong with this not being your last life.

[Anonymous No.14956732]

The Hindu Yuga cycle is scientifically impossible and Buddha said his religion would die out in a thousand years... both theory and prediction are inaccurate. Does this mean that both are a larp for gullible idiots and Neoplatonism is the true way?

[Anonymous No.14956736]

>>14956670
Mahayana realized that the laypeople actually need spirituality in their lives too. Especially if you're gonna be going around telling them that surviving(hunting, fishing and animal husbandry) will send them straight to hell for eons to come. ps: also remember to feed us; the new Brahmin class, for the rest of your life with those tasty meat stews of yours! ohh its not a roadkill and you actually had to slaughter it? *yummy* bye bye see you in hell laycuck ;^))))) may I have another portion please?

At least the Mahayana laypeople get to worship some gods while they are forced to go through all of this. Dunno how the Theravadins do it. The only thing they get for the trouble is getting to wash the feet and literally worship the monks.

[Anonymous No.14956748]

>>14956707
t. deity-worshipping, boddhisattva-wroshipping, quasi-theistic-Amitabha-devotee-praying-to-go-to-quasi-Christian-paradise apologist
Disappointing, but not surprising.

[Anonymous No.14956753]

>>14956684
What do you guys say then?

[Anonymous No.14956766]

>>14956732
The Hindu Yuga cycle comes from the background mythology of the Puranas, which are not considered to be revealed texts like the Upanishads are. Also the exact number of years doesn't have to align perfectly, but the general Yuga concept of an endless cycle in which there is an endless cycle of universes is in accordance with what some scientists speculate about the universe.

[Anonymous No.14956771]

But the worst thing about Mahayana "Buddhism" imo is this: ALL of their sutras are forgeries. Every scholar agree that the Mahayana sutras are centuries late sectarian forgeries that do not contain the words of the living Buddha. So they claim to be Buddhist but they actually follow the teachings of anonymous monks that did not find support for their novel doctrines in the oldest Pali sutras (which actually contain parts if not integral speeches of the Buddha). Good for them! But to me, the moment you engage in forgery and deception, the conversation is over. You can have a cool philosophy and all, but lying is a deal breaker. How can you trust such people for guidance in spiritual matters when they ar eknown liars and hacks? You can't.

[Anonymous No.14956782]

>>14956771
If the anonymous monks resonate more than the Buddha what's the problem? Hermeticism is also ex post facto

[Anonymous No.14956786]

>>14956771
>anonymous monks that did not find support for their novel doctrines in the oldest Pali sutras
So they wrote their own and dishonestly attributed them to the Buddha.*
I know Mahayana "Buddhists" call lying "expedient means" but no, lying is not ok.

[Anonymous No.14956788]

>>14956771
What of Upaya?

[Anonymous No.14956791]

>>14956598

[Anonymous No.14956802]

>>14956782
>If the anonymous monks resonate more than the Buddha what's the problem?
Then invent your own religion and don't call it Buddh-ism.
>Hermeticism is also ex post facto
Irrelevant. Not sure what your point is.

[Anonymous No.14956814]

>>14956788
A freepass to lie their asses off, apperently in the mind of Mahayana "Buddhists".

[Anonymous No.14956820]

>>14956766
What of the caste system? Did it prophecy late capitalism and how to escape? Hinduism is a boring larp for ignant hippie whitebois and hindoo nationalists aside from the admittedly useful meditation technology but you should seek that everywhere. If the timecycles are metaphorical then is it possible we have past midnight in the fall into darkness and are ascending and awakening to yet another golden dawn? I'm like a cosmopolitan evolan deleuzean

[Anonymous No.14956830]

>>14956771
>ALL of their sutras are forgeries. Every scholar agree that the Mahayana sutras are centuries late sectarian forgeries that do not contain the words of the living Buddha
So... Mahayana Buddhism > The Buddhism of the Buddha?

What the fuck have Theravada ever produced?

[Anonymous No.14956833]

>>14956802
What of vajrayana? They possess many early texts. Theravada is not the only ancestral buddhism

[Anonymous No.14956839]

>>14956814
Hermeticism resonates despite pseudonymity.

[Anonymous No.14956843]

>>14956830
>What the fuck have Theravada ever produced?
Are you an idiot? Pali Canon.

[Anonymous No.14956846]

>>14956788
Also when you open the "upaya" (shameless mendacity, in the minds of Mahayana "Buddhists") can you can never close it again. Because even rival sects within Mahayana "Buddhism" itself will say that the rival sect's doctrine was a "upaya" because they were not ready to receive the "true" and "final" teaching (which is their sect's teaching), so you're left with multiple contradictory "true", "final" teachings of the Buddha, and it just becomes comical.

[Anonymous No.14956856]

>>14956843
Nearly identical copies of the Suttas were also preserved in the Chinese canon, it's not the creation of Theravadins. Orientalists were just aware of the Theravadin collection of the canon first.

[Anonymous No.14956857]

>>14956830
If that rocks your boat, then fine. Just be self-aware and honest enough with yourself and others that you don't follow and don't care about whatever the Buddha actually taught, so therefore you're not a Buddh-ist. You're whatever. But honesty is not very highly regarded in Mahayana "Buddhism" is it? ;)

[Anonymous No.14956876]

>>14956482
>Because the Upanishads say so
And what makes them true?

[Anonymous No.14956880]

>>14956843
What about since then?
>pali canon
Equal parts repetitive, mere psychologizing through naive realism, and severe world-denying moralizing beyond what even Nietzsche could ever imagine possible.

[Anonymous No.14956882]

>>14956857
Buddhism isn't the following of Gautama Buddha but the following of ALL Buddhas

Gautama Buddha was only the 4th Buddha of 1000 in our world system

[Anonymous No.14956885]

>>14956786
What if they were the Buddha though?

[Anonymous No.14956893]

>>14956820
>What of the caste system?
References to it appear throughout the Vedas, Upanishads and post-Upanishad scriptures, although it's not until the post-Upanishad scriptures that anything appears which codifies all the exact rules of how it's supposed to work
>Did it prophecy late capitalism and how to escape?
Yes, late capitalism is highly suggestive of the Kali Yuga which is described in the Puranas and Mahabharata

the rest of your post is cringe

[Anonymous No.14956896]

>>14956833
>vajrayana
It's a clusterfuck of Mahayana "Buddhism", Animism, Bon, Shivaite and Tantric beliefs.
Their earliest text in their canon is the Abhidharmakośakārikā which is already a late Sanskrit commentary on the Pali Abdhidharma, which is itself the latest part of the Pali Canon, belonging to the so-called scholastic period. In other words everything I said about Mahayana applies even mroe to Vajrayana.

[Anonymous No.14956905]

>>14956882
Sure thing bro. Whatever the fake Mahayana sutras and fake masters tell you if it makes you feel better.

[Anonymous No.14956916]

>>14956893
>circular logic
Whelp. Thought there was an interesting conversation to be had but sorry...

[Anonymous No.14956919]

>>14956882
Theravadins decided to focus all their energy on the guide rather than the path for 2500 years. Mahayana went down the newly cleared road.

Literally staring at the finger instead of the moon.

[Anonymous No.14956924]

>>14956882
Strange how not a trace of the teachings of these so-called early Buddhas survived before the fake Mahayana monks "discovered" them centuries after the Gautama Buddha... See folks, like I said, honesty is not highly regarded by Mahayanists.

[Anonymous No.14956933]

>>14956919
so in practice how are they different

[Anonymous No.14956941]

>>14956919
More like poiting the finger at obvious fakes

[Anonymous No.14956944]

>>14956820
>past midnight in the fall into darkness and are ascending and awakening to yet another golden dawn
This is the general view of most modern hindus

[Anonymous No.14956950]

>>14956753
The Ineffable is: The One that is now before; One-Being that is; and the Good that is all to be.

[Anonymous No.14956952]

>>14956924
>Strange how not a trace of the teachings of these so-called early Buddhas survived before the fake Mahayana monks "discovered" them

Thats a weird way to say:
>In the earliest strata of Pali Buddhist texts, especially in the first four Nikayas, only the following seven Buddhas, The Seven Buddhas of Antiquity (Saptatathāgata), are explicitly mentioned and named
and
>according to a text in the Theravada Buddhist tradition from a later strata (between 1st and 2nd century BCE) called the Buddhavamsa, twenty-one more Buddhas were added to the list of seven names in the early texts
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_named_Buddhas

[Anonymous No.14956959]

>>14956933
In Mahayna you pray to the Medicine-Buddha to heal your tooth ache and the Yellow Tara to gain wealth and. Surely gaining wordly riches was what the Buddha taught that, oh I mean the other Buddhas before them (whose teaching was so completely lost that even Gautama Buddha forgot about them so he failed to mention them)!
Also you can pray to Amitabha Buddha to be born in the Western Paradise! Totally the teaching of the Buddha bro.

[Anonymous No.14956965]

Ah religions. Some things change and some things stay the same.

[Anonymous No.14956969]

>>14956952
Yeah there is mention of past Buddhas, which taught exactly the same Dharma as Gautama Buddha, not fake and invented Mahayana bs, which Gautama never taught. There cannot be dissent and contradiction among awakened and perfect arhats (but there can be among fake sectarian Mahayana "Buddhists" monks aka frauds)!

[Anonymous No.14956970]

>>14956959
>tfw born in western paradise
Am I, a mere whiteboi, a reincarnated Mahayanist?

[Anonymous No.14956976]

Why must it all be so confusing bros?

[Anonymous No.14956978]

>>14956598
/lit/ has a resident theosophist named guenonfag who admits he is not Hindu and lives in the USA but claims to be a Hindu and fan of the caste system

He's also totally insane (and possibly loves "girlcock," he was semi-doxxed but not 100% confirmed)

[Anonymous No.14956984]

>>14956950
Give me an intro book so I can transcend both Being and Non-Being without having to subject myself to the poos.

[Anonymous No.14956996]

>>14956976
What's so confusing? Don't you see the squirrels running around and playing? The Oak and Sugarberry trees being blown by the wind? The birds singing and chirping, each thinking they are the best chirper?>>14956978

[Anonymous No.14957000]

>>14956996
Yes but I chirp so very weak. Better to listen to the wind than fight against it.

[Anonymous No.14957034]

>>14956970
In Mahayana fake "Buddhism", the Western Paradise is a Buddha field. You see in Mahayana "Buddhism", contrary to what Gautama Buddha taught, when a Buddha achieves Nirvana he keeps existing in a super enlightened body with arms, legs, etc., but they are made of "Dharma" bro, so it's ok. Totally not a Self bro. And these enlightened Buddhas then create these Buddha fields so that the "Buddhist" "faithful" that pray to them can go to achieve Nirvana more easily.

[Anonymous No.14957041]

>>14957000
based and self-examined pilled

[Anonymous No.14957112]

>>14956876
>And what makes them true?
Shankara and the other Vedanta acharyas all accept that the Upanishads are a valid source of knowledge viz ultimate reality; to them this is one of the first things one has to accept if one is to engage in a serious exegesis of them otherwise its pointless. Accepting the Upanishads as being revealed scriptures doesn't however prevent them from engaging in extensive logical argumentation regarding the coherency and validity of those ideas, in the writings of the Vedantists they argue that metaphysical model of existence presented by the Upanishads is much more logical than the various other schools; for example Shankara criticizes as illogical the various doctrines of Samkhya, Buddhism, Jainism, Vaisheshika etc and especially focuses on how their explanations for how the world came about are untenable. To the Vedantins all human reasoning independent of revealed scriptures is ultimately fallible and not a guide to true knowledge; although they accept that other schools don't accept this principle and they still venture out in their writings to engage their opponents on their own terms to point out how their idea are logically inconsistent without relying on scriptural arguments.

[Anonymous No.14957389]

>>14957112
>guenonfag
*yawn*, filtered, etc.

[Anonymous No.14957529]

>>14957112
>Shankara and the other Vedanta acharyas all accept that the Upanishads are a valid source of knowledge viz ultimate reality;
And what makes them correct?

[Anonymous No.14957546]

>>14957529
Half it's the same as a catholic mystic taking the bible as truth
Half when you reach a certain point of spiritual growth you can verify for yourself that the teachings are true, long tradition or spiritual masters verifying teachings as being true gives them a lot of authority in that world.

[Anonymous No.14957693]

>>14957529
It's a part of being a Hindu that one accepts the teaching that the Hindu scriptures scriptures come from God just as Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Sikhsm and Jains all accept that either that their respective scriptures also come from God or from someone who reached perfect knowledge, in either case one accepts it on faith and on principal by virtue of belonging to that religion. If you are looking for a philosophical answer for why rational inquiry independent of scriptural authority is fallible I would point you to the Gettier problem which pointed in 1963 out the flaws inherent in the classic 'justified-true-belief' definition of knowledge and showed that there aren't really any consistent non-circular definitions of knowledge which include all valid definitions of knowledge while omitting things like accidental knowledge; which epistemology to this day still has not agreed on a solution to. One of the implications of the Gettier problem is that independent rational inquiry isn't actually a guide to the truth because the undefinability of knowledge undermines such inquiry. The so-called Gettier problem about the undefinability of knowledge was actually first written about in the 12th century by the poet and Advaita philospher Sriharsa, who pointed out that these sorts of flaws inherent in independent reasoning only support the position of someone who holds that revealed scriptures are necessary for knowledge of ultimate truth.

>for Śrīharṣa, rational inquiry—unconstrained by faith in scripture—cannot be a guide to the truth. The professed goal of the Nyāya system was to lay down a system of rational inquiry which, irrespective of the domain of inquiry, would allow one to progress towards to the truth in that domain. But Śrīharṣa thinks this is impossible. On the one hand, his refutation-arguments are supposed to illustrate that such systems of rational inquiry are self-undermining: their own rules can be used to undermine the fundamental ontological and epistemological categories that these systems rely on. On the one hand, Śrīharṣa wants to show that we cannot even engage in inquiry in good faith, and that arguments presented in the course of such inquiry—framed independently of scriptural testimony—cannot have any defeating force against scriptural testimony. The best way of making progress towards the truth is to have faith in scripture, and let reason occupy a secondary place.

https://www.iep.utm.edu/gettier/

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sriharsa/

[Anonymous No.14957742]

>>14957529
Circular reasoning and fiat. Vast majority of Hindus are people who shit on the floor and refuse to wash their hands but also think they have the one true religion because it says it's the one true religion. Do the math.

[Anonymous No.14957748]

>>14957742
>think they have the one true religion because it says it's the one true religion.
Is there any religion that does it another way?

[Anonymous No.14958024]

>>14956684
"Although there are many other philosophical problems connected with Advaita and
Neoplatonism, the main and characteristic trends of thought in both systems have
been considered here. Undoubtedly both philosophies have much in common and
many of their differences result from the different traditions from which each arose
and to which each belongs. The main trend of thought of each of these philosophies
is the secondary trend in the other. The main Neoplatonic theme is that there is a
hierarchy of being, at the summit of which is the One, the most perfect and highly
evaluated entity. In Plotinus there is also a tendency which stresses the perfection
of the One to such a degree that the rest of the universe is nothing in comparison
with it. In Advaita, on the other hand, the main tendency is to absolutely and
uncompromisingly deny the reality of anything apart from the absolute Brahman.
Here the complementary tendency is the acceptance of a vyāvahārika realm, which
is, as avidyā itself, neither real nor unreal but anirvacanīya. It actually plays a very
important role both in the theory and practice of Advaita. Therefore Neoplatonism
is the more world-negating and Advaita the more worldaffirming of the two"

https://dbnl.org/tekst/staa009adva01_01/staa009adva01_01.pdf

[Anonymous No.14958078]

>>14957546
What if my spiritual growth and teachers from a tradition just tells me that they are self-worshipping idolators?
>>14957693
>>for Śrīharṣa, rational inquiry—unconstrained by faith in scripture—cannot be a guide to the truth. The professed goal of the Nyāya system was to lay down a system of rational inquiry which, irrespective of the domain of inquiry, would allow one to progress towards to the truth in that domain. But Śrīharṣa thinks this is impossible. On the one hand, his refutation-arguments are supposed to illustrate that such systems of rational inquiry are self-undermining: their own rules can be used to undermine the fundamental ontological and epistemological categories that these systems rely on. On the one hand, Śrīharṣa wants to show that we cannot even engage in inquiry in good faith, and that arguments presented in the course of such inquiry—framed independently of scriptural testimony—cannot have any defeating force against scriptural testimony. The best way of making progress towards the truth is to have faith in scripture, and let reason occupy a secondary place.
This is actually based. If only they had the correct Christian scripture...

[Anonymous No.14958432]

>>14958078
>What if my spiritual growth and teachers from a tradition just tells me that they are self-worshipping idolators?
then you are in the wrong thread

[Anonymous No.14958460]

>>14956598
This meme but with chad Vajrayana stuff.

[Anonymous No.14958476]

>>14956095
Does Buddhism has something equivalent to the Ashtavakra Gita? That shit cured my mental illneses.

[Anonymous No.14958514]

>>14958024
if the one was everything then it would also be evil acts

[Anonymous No.14958541]

>>14956984
Plato's Phaedo, Phaedrus, and Republic.

[Anonymous No.14958545]

>>14956030
I hate this image so fucking much

[Anonymous No.14958559]

>>14958545
Show us where big bad Chadnkara touched your gf

[Anonymous No.14958563]

>>14958476
Not him, but the closest material stylistically to the Ashtavakra Gita which I have found in Buddhism would be some of the Tibetian stuff like Longchenpa, it doesn't resonate with me as much as the Ashtavakra Gita or certain other Hindu writings do but there are still parallels

http://promienie.net/images/dharma/books/longchenpa_treasury-of-the-basic-space-of-phenomena.pdf

[Anonymous No.14958566]

>>14958559
With his big, fat LINGAM

[Anonymous No.14958612]

>>14958514
The One/Brahman isn't held to be strictly identical with everything in a pantheistic sense in either Advaita Vedanta or Neoplatonism

[Anonymous No.14958754]

>>14958563
>serpent
yes bros hinduism is totally a cool religion to follow, trust me!

[Anonymous No.14958762]

>>14956047
Vedanta is one of the six orthodox schools of Hinduism.

You keep posting the same comments in every thread about it as you are a butthurt hare krishna

[Anonymous No.14958780]

Why do all these intellectual religions seethe so much at the idea of a personal/hypostatic God being the highest metaphysical principle?

[Anonymous No.14958836]

>>14958780
Each soul is the center of reality in Neoplatonism. It can't get more personal than you being a self-reflection of God himself. A realization of God's infinite potency.

[Anonymous No.14958852]

>>14958754

[Anonymous No.14958866]

>>14958780
Because the religions that advocate for this sort of understanding are religions like Christianity. Not only is God personal but his personality is clearly that of a mentally ill nitpicking person and for most of human existence a person of tribal favoritism.

[Anonymous No.14958895]

>>14958866
>his personality is clearly that of a mentally ill nitpicking person
>for most of human existence a person of tribal favoritism
So these people essentially advocate for a Western 'bugman' understanding of Christianity?

[Anonymous No.14958914]

>>14958895
Yes, Hinduism is a front for Westerners to adopt when they understand that Christ is the truth but are too afraid/prideful to repent and submit to him.

[Anonymous No.14958936]

>>14958836
>God himself
But this God is not a person himself, right? Is "he" just an amourphous completely ineffable blob then?
Also, in Christianity soul is distinct from person/hypostasis. We aren't our soul, nor our body, nor our mind, nor our consciousness, nor the sum of all of our actions.

[Anonymous No.14958968]

>>14958476
>tfw i used to study a lot of Advaita and got quite deep into it and then one time as i was reading a upanishad commentary by Shankara something happened for a split second... or really nothing happened but afterwards i had completely lost any fear of death. advaita usually use "bliss" so i guess i should use that but it was just one instant of *something*. i didn't see anything or have some out of body experience but there definitely was a change. Split second of non-dual bliss? sounds goofy i know
Thing is that I've always been completely terrified of the idea of death. The concept of going into complete non-existence etc

Since that day i stopped studying Advaita. Dunno if out of laziness or because i somewhat felt like in some way i "got it". Started trying to get into Buddhism so I've mostly been reading about that lately but that hasn't done anything for me. Basically been forcing me into Buddhism for the aesthetics of it compared to Hinduism lel. Been thinking about going into the Shankara:s commentaries though

I'm not even a spiritual guy and i only really got into Advaita because of /lit/ and in order to be able to argue with people. I come from a long line of atheists/agnostics.

[Anonymous No.14959149]

>>14958968
>Been thinking about going into the Shankaras commentaries though
It sounds like you stopped reading him just when things were starting to get good. I am biased as a big fan of his writing but I would recommend going back and reading through most of them. I have also had profound spiritual experiences simply from closely reading his commentaries.

[Anonymous No.14959521]

>>14958968
Have you tried looking into a more authentic tradition instead of Hindu-inspired Theosophy (Advaita)? If you like nondualism, Buddhism does it better and has traditional institutions that aren't westerners roleplaying online.

[Anonymous No.14959625]

>tfw the seething anti-shankara poster is still trying to get people to reply to his troll posts

imagine letting someone from the 8th century live in your head for free this much

[Anonymous No.14959724]

>>14959625
Do you mean me? I just think advaita is entry level orientalism. Not trolling.

[Anonymous No.14959915]

>Appayya Dikshita (often "Dikshitar"), 1520–1593 CE, was a performer of yajñas as well as an expositor and practitioner of the Advaita Vedanta school of Hindu philosophy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appayya_Dikshita

Discuss

[Anonymous No.14959941]

>>14959521
>Buddhism has traditional institutions that aren't westerners roleplaying online.
However it has a huge new-agey LARPfest following in the west, moreso than Hinduism (but I will admit that western Hindus are far more cringey).

[Anonymous No.14959948]

>>14959915
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appayya_Dikshita

>Dikshitar travelled widely, entering into philosophical disputations and controversies in many centers of learning. He had the rare good fortune of being revered and patronized in his own life-time by kings of Vellore, Tanjore, Vijayanagara and Venkatagiri.
>He was well read in every branch of Sanskrit learning and wrote as many works, large and small. Only 60 of them are, however, extant now. These include works on Vedanta, Shiva Advaita, Mimamsa, Vyakarana, Kavya vyakhyana, Alankara, and devotional poetry.
His remarkable outlook, his thoroughness in writing, his impartiality, his unerring sense of values, and his concern for truth are all so evident in these writings that the Vaishnavas have adopted the Naya-Mayukha-Malika as their manual for study.
>Among the Vedantic works of Appayya Dikshitar, the Siddhanta-lesha-sangraha is most famous. In this elaborate and original treatise, he brings together in one place, all different dialectical thinking belonging to the advaitic school. Traditional students of Vedanta begin their study of Vedantic commentaries only after studying this Siddhanta Lesha sangraha. All the different views of different subschools of advaita, like those of `eka-jiva-vada', `nana-jiva-vada', `bimba-pratibimba vada' `sakshitva-vada' etc. are all discussed and the contrary views properly explained in this work with Appayya Dikshitar's masterly touch.
>Dikshitar graphically describes dvaita as the lowest step, vishishtadvaita as the middle step and sivadvaita and advaita which are very close to each other as the highest steps

he sounds quite based, I'm going to see if I can find some English translations of his works, thanks

[Anonymous No.14959966]

>>14959948
poos should learn to write impartially, it makes you look like a retarded cultist when you have to praise the guy ten times per sentence in a wiki page

[Anonymous No.14959967]

>>14959948
ok dickshitter, you do that

[Anonymous No.14959987]

>>14959966
I love the enthusiasm that some Indians display when writing of a historical figure they have affection for, it speaks to an inherent light-hearted optimism that shows how foolish and unproductive of joy cynicism is by comparison.

[Anonymous No.14960021]

>>14959967
I lol'd uncontrollably for a minute at this

[Anonymous No.14960039]

>>14959987
no it shows they haven't gone beyond ooga booga muh guru bigger than your guru mentality, and it makes westerners instinctively look down on them as dumb peasants. you can be optimistic without being a primitive retard. same reason chink nationalism looks so animalistic to civilized people.

[Anonymous No.14960045]

>>14959948
>Hence he swallowed the juice of the `datura' fruit, which introduces intoxication, and told his disciples that they should write down whatever he says, during the stage when his consciousness was disturbed. In the stage of inebriation generally all suppressed ideas would find release and come out into the open. And in his case it was the Atmarpana-stuti that came out. It is therefore also called Unmatta-panchasati.
This sonds interesting. Anybody got an link to an English edition of that?

[Anonymous No.14960063]

>>14960045
English translation of it here

https://sanskritdocuments.org/sites/snsastri/Atmarpanastuti-English.pdf

[Anonymous No.14960082]

>>14960063
Holy... Based...

[Anonymous No.14960083]

>>14960039
you sound like someone who is bitter and unhappy, that's okay if you want to do that but I choose to live a happy life

[Anonymous No.14960127]

>>14960083
don't take a genuine and perfectly reasonable criticism so personally you butthurt baby. being able to admit a fault and improve from it is another western invention you can borrow once you're ready.

[Anonymous No.14960215]

>>14960127
the chad enthuastic high-test eager praising versus the virgin self-conscious emasculated worried about what others will think

[Anonymous No.14960475]

>>14959948
>Dikshitar

[Anonymous No.14960772]

>>14959149>>14958476
>>14956642

>>14959149>>14959948

[Anonymous No.14960853]

I read all of the pro-advaita posts here in a heavy Ranjeesh Dickshitter accent. Just letting you guys know.

[Anonymous No.14960987]

>>14956833>>14956598

most suttas in mahyana do not overlap with the pali suttas, so mayahana have to do a lot of mental gymnastic to justify their new suttas.

[Anonymous No.14960989]

>>14959948
>Dikshitar *graphically describes* dvaita as the lowest step
based...

[Anonymous No.14960996]

>>14956598>>14956217

This stems from the confusion of Hinduism with Buddhism
For the Hindus, people have the knowledge that they have a true nature, but people are misguided on what they take as their true nature. This is why the Hindus say that people are already enlightened, they just do not know about it... The true nature of people is not the 5 senses or their objects, it is the mind, the cosmos, or later their deification of this, ie their Brahma or their Buddha, and when people realize this they are enlightened. The way to realize this is by relying on material objects which purify their minds, like sounds, logic, mantras, little beads, amulets.

Then people ask the usual question ''why the cosmos produce things which do not know that they are the cosmos?'' ie ''why are people not born directly enlightened? instead of being born unenlightened which produces lots of suffering?''
So far the Hindus have no answer to this ''question of evil''. The Hindus keep replying ''people do not know their true nature'' and that's their answer...

Mahayana is hinduism where they replaced brahma with their new idea of buddhanature. Things have a true nature this nature is just the primordial mind or the mind of a buddha.

in Buddhism, people do not have a true nature, people are not the cosmos, people are not Brahma, people are not Buddha, people are not their mind, people are not born already enlightened. In Buddhism there is only craving for pretty things and pretty ideas [ie the idea of having ''a true nature''] and lack of craving for pretty things and pretty ideas. People get enlightened when they stop craving for those. The way to get enlightened is to purify the mind, however not with objects like the Hindus do, but with the mind itself, ie all the time checking [with the mind] the behavior of the mind and then viewing the mind as it really is, which is anicca, dukkha , anatta, which triggers dispassion, which triggers liberation which triggers knowledge that dukkha is ended.

[Anonymous No.14960998]

>>14959948
>Dikshita
Seems like he got some bad karma and Brahman retroactively punished him by making a complete mockery of him at 4channel.

[Anonymous No.14961006]

>>14960996
>the Hindus say that people are already enlightened, they just do not know about it...
That is.... so deep.... I am brahman... I am enligthened... I do not feel suffering....

[Anonymous No.14961011]

>>14960996
>People get enlightened when they stop craving for those
Isn't the very fact of engaging in those practices an admission of craving enligthenment?

[Anonymous No.14961063]

>>14960996
that description of what Hinduism teaches is completely wrong

[Anonymous No.14961152]

>>14960996
At least Hindus and Mahayana believes enlightenment transcends death so the spiritual life is actually not rendered pointless at death.

Most people do not feel dukkha to be so ever present to justify themselves to spend their lives in asceticism and world-denying moralism if all of it can be solved by death, either by ignoring dukkha until then or finding joy in death.

[Anonymous No.14961716]

>>14961152
They don't like death as the answer. They want you to overcome dukka by buddaing it away.

[Anonymous No.14961727]

>>14960045
Impressive. Datura sounds like the worst drug ever. Turns you into a raving paranoid guy for 3 days and you see worms crawling all over you and it has lots of death themes.

[Anonymous No.14961791]

>>14956312
>why do Christians believe Christ is the Messiah
Good one anon.

[Anonymous No.14962145]

>>14961011
Indeed! That's why they are only an intermediate step.

[Anonymous No.14963146]

>>14956615
https://www.instagram.com/vishuddhadas/

[Anonymous No.14963324]

Is there more than one distinct Atman? I do not understand how this can be the case if the Atman is identical to the irreducibly simple Brahman. Granted I am coming at this from a Neoplat perspective.

[Anonymous No.14963340]

>>14960996
>For the Hindus, people have the knowledge that they have a true nature, but people are misguided on what they take as their true nature. This is why the Hindus say that people are already enlightened, they just do not know about it...
This is incorrect, it is not said that people are already enlightened and they just don't know it, it is said in some schools that liberation and eternal unembodiedness is the true nature of the Self and that this cannot be directly realized until spiritual illumination, but this is not the same as saying that everyone is already enlightened

>The true nature of people is not the 5 senses or their objects, it is the mind, the cosmos, or later their deification of this, ie their Brahma or their Buddha, and when people realize this they are enlightened.
All of this is wrong, from the very first Upanishads predating Buddhism they clearly state that one's true nature is the Supreme Self or the Paramatma, not the mind, not the cosmos and not the creator God Brahmna.

>The way to realize this is by relying on material objects which purify their minds, like sounds, logic, mantras, little beads, amulets.
This is wrong, the Upanishads state that one reaches enlightenment through knowledge of the Self, which destroys ignorance and confers liberation. This knowledge of the Self is not to be reached through purifying the mind but is supposed to be reached via studying under a realized teacher and having him instruct the disciple in Self-knowledge.

>Then people ask the usual question ''why the cosmos produce things which do not know that they are the cosmos?'' ie ''why are people not born directly enlightened? instead of being born unenlightened which produces lots of suffering?''
According to Advaita for example Brahman's projects the illusion of samsara via His power of maya which is why there are deluded people and why ignorance exists, The individual souls are eternal and beginningless and the joy and goodness or the lack of those things in those individual souls lives are not set by Brahman but are determined by the past karma of that individual soul.

>So far the Hindus have no answer to this ''question of evil''.
That's wrong, both Shankara and Ramanuja explain in their Brahma Sutra commentaries that Brahman is the impartial cause of everything without dispensing special favor or disfavor just as the rain falls down and affects all plants impartially, and that the existence of evil in any life is predicated on that soul's karma and cannot be said to be Brahman's responsibility, just as the possibilities of growth dormant in a seed are determined by that seed and not the rain that falls on all seeds equally. It is rather the Buddhists who have no explanation whatsoever for samsara and for why there is ignorance, or why samsara is eternal if everything is supposed to lack a permanent nature. The Buddhist wants to pretend he knows how to escape the maze without knowing how he got inside it to begin with

[Anonymous No.14963361]

>>14963324
There is only one Atman in Advaita

[Anonymous No.14963384]

>>14963324
>Granted I am coming at this from a Neoplat perspective.
It's impossible to harmonize Neoplatonism and Vedanta. I've tried it. The closest thing to Atman in the Neoplatonism is the World Soul (with individual souls being jivas). Problem is that in Vedanta Atman is indentical with Brahman which is the highest principle. In Neoplatonism the World Soul is not the highest hypostasis, but is beneath the One and Nous. Nous however in Indian philosophy would correspond with the Buddhi ("universal intelligence", pic related), but this is bellow Prakriti (nature). But in Neoplatonism Nature is below the world Soul and almost next to matter... So you see the problems.

[Anonymous No.14963393]

>>14963384
Same anon here. This picture is incorrect. They separated Buddhi from Mahat, which are the same in Samkhya. Probably due to Theosophical influence. The following is the true picture.

[Anonymous No.14963408]

>>14956030
As others might have said in their own words, there comes a point when you are so near to God that you cannot stand. The power of God makes you stand. But I am surprised to hear that apparently platonism is even more world denying. of course you cannot deny the world when God is the world. Of course you can deny the world when God is the world.

[Anonymous No.14963434]

>>14963408
>But I am surprised to hear that apparently platonism is even more world denying.
Not so. Despite (Neo)platonism being monistic, it does not deny the reality of the world. In it, the world we live in is a truly-existing, tangible world. Its relative "unreality" is due to its being in constant change. Whereas in Advaita Vedanta the world is positively unreal, an illusion, comparable to a dream, etc.

[Anonymous No.14963448]

>>14963434
>relative
to the intelligible world, which is changeless. In Advaita moreover that is not even a immutable, higher realm. Everything safe Brahman is unreal.

[Anonymous No.14963449]

>>14963384
>>14963393
Appreciated. I suppose a firmer grasp of one or the other is needed on my part before comparing, much less harmonizing. I believe my primary issue to be an inability to marry a process of Becoming (infinite action) with a non-process of irreducible One-ness (infinite inaction).

[Anonymous No.14963483]

>>14963449
Whitehead talked about that. They complement each other. Father and Son is what I would call it.

[Anonymous No.14963488]

>>14963449
>I believe my primary issue to be an inability to marry a process of Becoming (infinite action) with a non-process of irreducible One-ness (infinite inaction).
Nobody has ever satisfactorily answered that question (to my knowledge).

[Anonymous No.14963537]

How is Advaita Vedanta different from the concept of theosis in Eastern Orthodoxy? Non-duality, "living in the world without living for it" and so on. Is it essentially the same?

[Anonymous No.14963551]

>>14963483
The Son is capacity for becoming (Logos) rather than becoming itself, no? Zizek has some interesting dialogue on the Holy Spirit as the active force disseminated among mankind on the death of the Father as proclaimed by the Son (why have you forsaken me, etc.)

[Anonymous No.14963593]

>>14963537
We must distinguish between the practice and the dogmatic "discourse" about theosis. Orthodox theologians and lay philosophers would NEVER concede that it is anything like yogic samadhi (see Jay Dyer), but in actual practice, they are very similar. They will cite numerous arguments like in Christian theology the creator is never confused witht the creature, etc. But these are mere dogmatic formulas. Ironically enough, Roman Catholics tease them calling them "Buddhists" and and hesychasm "yoga", etc. Barlaam, a Roman Catholic monk who denounced hesychast theology as heretical called hesychasts "navel gazers", because they gazed at their navels, just like yoga practitioners. I for one think that the truth is one and the same and hesychasts and other similar contemplatives on the fringes of Abrahamic ortodoxy, like Sufis, Quietists, etc., really experience the oneness as Hindu and Buddhist yogis do.

[Anonymous No.14963631]

>>14963551
Whitehead said that there is a part of God that becomes. It makes sense in my own experience. Some say that the holy spirit is the one nearest to us. "God created all things through the Son" but God is eternally giving birth to himself. Maybe God can become because he affords it within himself. Or another way we say that God is overflowing himself. In the end what does being and becoming even matter, reality is reality. God is searching in himself without effort.

[Anonymous No.14963654]

>>14963384
>It's impossible to harmonize Neoplatonism and Vedanta. I've tried it.

"When one beholds the First Principle, one does not behold it as different from one's self, but as one with one's self" - Plotinus, Ennead VI.9.10

As McEvilley writes in 'The Shape of Ancient Thought' they are largely compatible, the main differences follow from Plotinus using a 3-tiered system of One, Nous and World Soul whereas the Advaita uses a 2-tiered system of Brahman and the world/samsara. But the Advaitic understanding actually still aligns with the 3-tiered Neoplatonism understanding because Saguna Brahman fulfills the role of Nous; just as in Neoplatonism the One/Nirguna Brahman does not directly create anything but delegates the act of creation to the Nous/Saguna Brahman.

>Nous however in Indian philosophy would correspond with the Buddhi ("universal intelligence", pic related), but this is bellow Prakriti (nature)
It seems like you are confusing Samkhya and Vedanta here, Advaita rejects most of the cosmology of Samkhya and its ordered enumeration of Prakriti, Buddhi, Mahat etc

>>14963434
>Whereas in Advaita Vedanta the world is positively unreal, an illusion, comparable to a dream, etc.
This is wrong, the world is not equated as being unreal on the same level as dream, in fact Shankara in his works strongly criticizes the Buddhist Idealists who equate the dream and waking world as being similarly unreal. in Advaita the outside world and the elements exists as manifestations of Brahman and these continue existing as objects when we are asleep etc, this world is empirically and conditionally real, but is taken to be unreal in an absolute sense, but this point cannot be made without the qualification that Advaita means "real" in its absolute sense, in the sense of that which is always real at all times and places without any change. Obviously as objects are formed of composite parts and are subject to causality, decay etc the world of objects cannot be real in this absolute sense. As it is logically impossible that the changing manifested world could have itself as its own immutable eternal basis the non-qualification of the world for the category of absolutely real/absolute real is clearly correct.

>>14963449
The non-process of One-ness is the support of the Becoming insofar as Brahman has maya as His power (sakti), they don't need to be married to one another but one is the superior principle of the other.

[Anonymous No.14963697]

>>14963537
>>14963593
But Orthodox monks also believe in the resurrection of the flesh. They negate this physical, corrupted world but also believe in the coming of a new physical world without brokenness, right?

[Anonymous No.14963718]

>>14963697
Yes, Christians are bound to believe in the dogmas of Christianity... Your point being?

[Anonymous No.14963753]

>>14963718
Can you please let us discuss comparative theology and religious philosophy in this thead without poisoning the well with random attacks on people for believing in "dogmas"? thank you

[Anonymous No.14963786]

>>14963718
Crypto-materialism
>inb4 a "spiritual body" is an oxymoron

[Anonymous No.14963790]

>>14963753
Indeed. Dogma or not, I find the Christian vision of creation far superior to Hinduism -- or at least advaita. Essentially advaita is the same old schizo doctrine of being God found in countless occultisms. Am more interested in vishishtadvaita as it seems more realistic for maintaining absolute difference between atman and brahman.

[Anonymous No.14963795]

>>14963753
As I've explained here >>14963593, there is the practice and then there is the belief about the practice. Christians believe what they believe. I fail to see your point.

[Anonymous No.14963836]

>>14963790
but isn't it in a similar way that Atman is Brahman, The Son is God and the Father is God (and also the Holy Spirit being God)?
I do think that the christian genesis, creation is superior as well; but besides liking some Hindu cosmology, I think they could be seen as similar to som extent. But obviously, the indefinite cyclical manifestation does not make much sense, it's like Origenism.

[Anonymous No.14963842]

>>14963786
the spiritual body is not the last stage for a christian, theosis is.

[Anonymous No.14963899]

>>14963790
>Essentially advaita is the same old schizo doctrine of being God found in countless occultisms.
This is not true, there are a huge number of possibilities of what this means in practice, and the exact explanation that Advaita gives of the relation is not found elsewhere, with the exception of a few Sufi thinkers. What about the person is God, their identity? their mind? their awareness? Is the status shared by everyone or not? Is the individual God completely or in part? or is God really appearing as the individual? Or is the individual part of the whole of God? There are a huge variety of ways to understand such a teaching some of which end up being quite different in practice, the one taught by Advaita doesn't really have any antecedents in the west aside from Neoplatonism which isn't the exact same anyway and can only be compared as similar.

>Am more interested in vishishtadvaita as it seems more realistic for maintaining absolute difference between atman and brahman.
That's Dvaita not Vishishtadvaita, Vishishtadvaita mantains that the relation between the individual soul and God is the same as of that between parts and the whole. Dvaita is sort of a joke I would recommend not wasting your time getting into it, the founder Madhva is notorious for changing the words of the Upanishads by moving letters from one word to another to make it read a different meaning, and in his writings he cites all sorts of passages from the Mahabharata and Puranas to support his interpretations which don't actually exist, later Vedantists who replied to his works to refute them noted that he evidently made up dozens of scriptural quotes wholecloth because they don't appear in any of the editions of these works and no other thinker ever cited them.

[Anonymous No.14963918]

>>14963899
>make it read a different meaning, and in his writings he cites all sorts of passages from the Mahabharata and Puranas to support his interpretations which don't actually exist, later Vedantists who replied to his works to refute them noted that he evidently made up dozens of scriptural quotes wholecloth because they don't appear in any of the editions of these works and no other thinker ever cited them.
Looks like ISKCON's translations!

[Anonymous No.14963978]

>>14963836
>But obviously, the indefinite cyclical manifestation does not make much sense
how so?

[Anonymous No.14964030]

>>14963697
>>14963786
see >>14964006

[Anonymous No.14964121]

Brothers... I have just returned from a poo outside just as Guenon (pbuh) prescribes.... I feel pure bliss

[Anonymous No.14964175]

>>14956771
is all Christianity after paul fake as well?

[Anonymous No.14964183]

>>14963718
His point was probably that therefore they are not at all the same since Christian dogma contradicts non-dualism.

[Anonymous No.14964186]

>>14963842
That is not true. The ultimate endgame is a recreated perfected universe and earth where we inhabit our own bodies once again.

[Anonymous No.14964224]

>>14964183

[Anonymous No.14964232]

>>14964186
My understanding of this universe is that it is a more crystallized version of the symbols that exist in the spiritual world. It is like water that was frozen into ice. Our universe will not remain ice. Personally I love having a body and playing in the symbolic aspect of reality. Material is great and more refined material is better but materialism is certainly not the ultimate of reality nor is the cosmos just the symbolics of this universe.

[Anonymous No.14964248]

>>14964224
Not an argument.

Perennialism was a mistake. Now every fence-sitter can pretend he's actually enlightened as opposed to having some sort of mental retardation that causes him to be unable to discriminate.

No. When people argue for the complete opposite things then they are not actually in fact arguing for the same thing.

[Anonymous No.14964270]

>>14964186
Agreed. That is the Christian dogma. Theosis is the closest thing to an "esoteric" teaching in Greek Orthodoxy. It is not really secret, but it's "discreet". It originated from the practice of oneness in hesycham, but there are hints of it in scripture.

[Anonymous No.14964274]

>>14956642
>Disregard advaita.
>read Abhinavagupta

"The charge of Kashmlra Shaivism against Advaita Vedanta that its Brahma is abstract, formal and inactive and therefore is as good as ‘nothing’ is incorrect. On the other hand, the truth is that the Shaiva conception of unity as ‘union of the two’ falls short of the transcendental unity and is not the true ‘advaita’. Advaita is not afraid, as this system imagines, of duality, for really there is no duality and Advaita is not troubled by illusion and hallucination. The transcendental unity in Advaita Vedanta is above the thought forms of unity and duality. Real unity cannot be ‘union of the two’, for if the two are equals they are two independent reals which cannot be related; and if one of the two is primary and the other secondary, this dependent ‘other’ will be found to be dispensable and will glide away into the principal which alone can be called real. It is Kashmlra Shaivism which is afraid of losing the finite self and its world and therefore wants to retain them in some form even in the Absolute. If Shiva is the Supreme Self, the pure Subject, how can He be the unity of subject and object? No trace of the object can be ultimately retained in the subject. If this supposed ‘unity', this ‘union of subject and object' is the subject, there can be no objectivity in it; and if it is an object, it cannot be the unity of subject and object. To describe the unity of the Self as the unity of subject and object, as the union of Shiva and Shakti, of knowledge and activity, where everything is retained and seen in a new light, where an all-embracing wonderful experience shines, where there is self-conscious experience of being and bliss may represent a grand achievement of thought, but does not point to ultimate reality; it may be good poetry, but it is not sound philosophy. It may satisfy our religious instinct, but it does not resist dialectical scrutiny. Objectivity, duality and attachment are due to transcendental Illusion. To try to retain them in the Absolute is an impossibility. It reflects our attachment to the 'I' and the ‘mine' and is Ignorance par excellence."

[Anonymous No.14964276]

>>14964248
Ok, do your thing in peace.

[Anonymous No.14964291]

>>14964248
Yeah yeah you are low to the ground little one. As for me and Nietzsche we fly high, I'm seeing a lot yo.

[Anonymous No.14964307]

>>14964276
You people are complete weirdos and I will never understand you. Where does this urge come from which makes you want to make everything equal? Why are you all so hellbent on making sure every spirituality/religion is saying the exact same thing?

What is so horrible about the thought that Christianity and Advaita(or any other religions) have laid forward two completely different world-views? Is diversity really that awful?

[Anonymous No.14964351]

>>14964274
>Ignorance par excellence."
Found the duality. Haha JK. Ignorance and wisdom, Love and Desire are all the same thing over here. A reality Without Love would have me not exist. Scientism is the claim that reality is only knowledge. It breaks apart the image of reality and forgets certain parts of it. It speaks in part which is to say it is some wisdom and some ignorance doing something. How hard is it to see that i am an impression in the Ultimate Reality? I don't dissolve, I find myself. But gee remember I said I don't dissolve. Maybe we are just speaking two different languages. ;/

[Anonymous No.14964377]

>>14964307
There can be only one!

JK. To me Advaita is the only philosophy that makes sense of the mystic experiences described by many mystics throughout history and around the world, which all describe a sense of oneness with God and the universe. The alternative would be that only some of them are correct the other are demonic deceptions, but then which one? I realize that my belief comes in conflict with yours, but that is unintended, albeit inevitable.

[Anonymous No.14964385]

>>14964307
I have no time to lower myself to foolish creatures who don't see the unity. So I rid myself of the illusion, I put together all the little pieces that make the perfect thing that I see. When I drunkenly say there is a Unity, this is what I'm experiencing. For many years I've seen my own religious sects fight over one another. Sometimes they really fight over different facets of the same gem. Other times one person says something inferior and another says something Superior. I take all the best as much as I can and that's why Jesus said blessed are the peacemakers. There is a lower kind of attempt at unifying things and there is a higher way. As much as I can I'm trying to see the unity. So I use as much capacity as I can. I don't see unity in just religions. I hear the truth in touhou music. I hear it in it's discursive mode with many Souls. God is infinite. I'm ascending forever and I'm taking my time too, checking out all the cool plants on the path I'm walking.

[Anonymous No.14964389]

if u wish to find authentic discussion join this gfeRNrW discord community if you are an incel interested in philosophy

no hylics, no normies, no cringe cucks

[Anonymous No.14964473]

>>14964389
based... most based discord I've ever seen on lit, bless you brother

[Anonymous No.14964490]

>>14964389
>incel abode
Lmao not gonna join that

[Anonymous No.14964608]

[Anonymous No.14964642]

>>14964186
>>14964270
that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me.

[Anonymous No.14964666]

>>14964608
Swedeanon from some of those posts. I am not guenonfag though. Interestingly guenonfag himself thought I had spoken with him on discord, but i've never used discord in my life.

Never been on /int/ either. The guy trying to get (you)s with the eating of feminine cum with a spoon is not me either. The green dark green posts are me though. Also I wouldn't say "Hope this works" as i'm linking to another board since i'm not a fucking newfag.
>tl;dr guenonhunters think i'm guenonfag and have proceeded to collect random posts from various swedes all over this site to try and prove it, and guenonfag thinks i'm one of his friends
Basically I am the ultimate puppet master.

Although it would be unironically unfortunate if I got doxxed just because some autist started hunting me after I shared a guenonfag copypasta on /pol/ this one time like a year ago ;^( You shouldn't be doing this. I am a human being just like you

[Anonymous No.14964682]

>>14964666
>regularly uses the same cluster of images with the same filenames in the same sorts of threads
>loves cum
>"It's not me, I don't love cum. I'm all of those posts except the cum ones"

You summoned the cum anon, admit it. There is no turning back from your cum love.

[Anonymous No.14964686]

>>14964666
>666

[Anonymous No.14964822]

>>14963537
that is clement of alexandria not athasius, clement was a platonist athansius was not

[Anonymous No.14965002]

>>14964642
How do orthodox Christians explain the way that all can be one JUST AS the Father is in the Son and the Son is in the Father? We know how the later works: one essence, two persons. How then can the faithful be one JUST AS the Father and the Son if not by being of the same essence as the Father and the Son? Is Jesus speaking in vain? The way I see it, only Advaita can can make sense of this assertion.

[Anonymous No.14965333]

>>14965002
by synergetic unity, univocal diversity in the plenitude of Love of the Godhead; there is no confusion/dissolution in an impersonal God

[Anonymous No.14965377]

>>14965333
But that is not the way the Father is in the Son and the Son in the Father

[Anonymous No.14965398]

>>14965377
by synergetic unity we participate in the divine essence

[Anonymous No.14965414]

>>14965398
Again he said
>that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me.
The Father is not in the Son and the Son in the Father by "synergetic unity"

[Anonymous No.14965470]

>>14965414
When God acts, the whole Trinity acts. It is not only the Father, or only the Son, but the Three in a common Will. Just as there is no confusion between Them (Us) there will be no confusion between us and Them.

[Anonymous No.14965530]

>>14963836
>eternal impassable timeless being doesn't eternally create

[Anonymous No.14965572]

>>14965470
Let me rephrase it then. How is the Father in the Son and the Son in the Father? We know this by the Nicene formula. They are different persons but one and the same essence. This is the mode by way of which the Father is in the Son and the Son in the Father. Let's call it m.
So we have m.
Jesus said
>that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you.
Just as you are in me and I am in you = m.
But what was m? The mode by way of which the Father is in the Son and the Son in the Father.
So if humans can be all one, and not in any way but in the mode m, it follows that they are all one by way of being different persons and one and the same essence.
Ok.
But Jesus says more
>May they also be in us
May they also be in what way?
>just as you are in me and I am in you
But this is m.
Jesus is claiming that humans can be in him and the Father the same way that they are in each other, namely m.
But m = different persons but one and the same essence.
It follows that Jesus is claiming that humans have the same essence as he and the Father, namely the divine essence.
That is the same claim as Avdaita Vedanta.

[Anonymous No.14965638]

>>14965572
>It follows that Jesus is claiming that humans have the same essence as he and the Father, namely the divine essence.
>That is the same claim as Avdaita Vedanta.
NO, jesus christ
we will partake of the same essence, we will participate in it in the same way that the Father and the Son are one by way of it
if the essence is the same there is no distinction, no diversity nor unity in the sense of unifying, no Love, no Personality

[Anonymous No.14965662]

>>14965572
>It follows that Jesus is claiming that humans have the same essence as he and the Father, namely the divine essence.
Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, 'I have said you are "gods"'? (John 10:34)

[Anonymous No.14965683]

>>14965638
I'm afraid the plain meaning of the text is clear. It doesn't say humans will be in the Father and the Son in a DIFFERENT way than the Father and the Son are in each other (namely by participation, or any other way one can think of). It says
>just as
Namely, the same way.

[Anonymous No.14965716]

>>14965683
>just as Namely, the same way
YES, WITHOUT CONFUSION, WITHOUT DISSOLUTION IN AN ALL-ENGULFING ESSENCE

[Anonymous No.14965736]

>>14965716
Oh, I see. So different persons, same essence then.

[Anonymous No.14966127]

>>14963593
>But these are mere dogmatic formulas.
>these are like, mere outdated dogma bro, trust me, it's all the same they don't actually believe in it!
> Ironically enough, Roman Catholics tease them calling them "Buddhists"
It indeed is ironic, as Roman Catholic theology is more reconcilable with Advaita/Buddhism.
>I for one think that the truth is one
So then either the Orthodox metaphysic is true... or.... the Advaita metaphysic is. Because they logically deny each other. You can't possibly reconcile Advaita with a metaphysic that outright posits _real_ distinctions at the absolute level of reality. Or you'd need to say that one of the sides is just stupid and doesn't truly understand what it experiences, but I don't see how you could possibly justify that non-arbitrarily.

[Anonymous No.14966163]

>>14966127
The point is orthopraxis, not orthodoxy.

[Anonymous No.14966380]

>>14966127
>Or you'd need to say that one of the sides is just stupid and doesn't truly understand what it experiences, but I don't see how you could possibly justify that non-arbitrarily.
That is indeed the crux of the issue and I agree, neither can be ruled out, except arbitrarily. I've stated why I prefer Advaita here >>14964377

[Anonymous No.14966386]

>>14965398
>>14965638
>we participate in the divine essence
>we will partake of the same essence, we will participate in it in the same way that the Father and the Son are one by way of it
That would literally mean that humans would no longer be human. We will always be human, never confusing our humanity with any other essence, but we will become divinized as humans through participiation in the uncreated Glory of God, the same one Christ shares with the Father. In Orthodoxy, one can experience this union with the divine even in life, like when Paul converted to Christianity because he saw God's uncreated light at his road to Damascus, it's also the same light the Apostles saw at Mount Tabor.

>>14966163
I don't believe you can truly separate the two. Your theology will surely affect and color the experience you have and how you will interpret it. This is why obvious prelest such as stigmata exists in the first place. Faulty theology will lead to faulty experience and vice versa.

[Anonymous No.14966419]

>>14966127
>>14966380
I agree with you guys. I respect advaita vedanta a lot, I think that together with platonism it reaches very close to the Truth. But I don't understand how a complete confusion, dissolution into an all-engulfing impersonal oneness could be superior to a utter transcendent univocal diversity. The former tends to be indigent of its own emanations and in a way essentially connected to everything, even matter.

[Anonymous No.14966453]

>>14966386
>That would literally mean that humans would no longer be human.
and isn't this the point of theosis?

>We will always be human, never confusing our humanity with any other essence, but we will become divinized as humans through participiation in the uncreated Glory of God
there will be no confusion with God's essence, but a participation. Father and Son are one by way of essence, we by participation.

>one can experience this union with the divine even in life
I don't doubt it, but I still think that there is a difference between this and the post-salvation eternal Light and Glory of God.

[Anonymous No.14966502]

>>14966386
>In Orthodoxy, one can experience this union with the divine even in life, like when Paul converted to Christianity because he saw God's uncreated light at his road to Damascus
That's the point. Nonduality is never about belief and always about experience.
>Faulty theology will lead to faulty experience and vice versa.
That's partly true, but orthopraxis is always more important than orthodoxy.

[Anonymous No.14966574]

>>14966453
>and isn't this the point of theosis?
The point of theosis is to become divinized while human. We won't be completely separated from our humanity, but raised to a higher state by God's grace due to us being made in the image of God.
>but a participation
God's essence itself is ineffable and unknowable, only his divine energies (operations) are known to us through the divine hypostases. Us participating in the essence would mean additional hypostases in the Godhead.

>the post-salvation eternal Light and Glory of God
Was the vision at Mount Tabor post-salvation? No, it was a vision of the Uncreated Light by living humans. Christ said he wants to share with us the Father's glory given to him, he didn't say that he would merely share some created copy of it.

(John 17) 20 “My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21 that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22 I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one— 23 I in them and you in me—so that they may be brought to complete unity. Then the world will know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me. 24 “Father, I want those you have given me to be with me where I am, and to see my glory, the glory you have given me because you loved me before the creation of the world. 25 “Righteous Father, though the world does not know you, I know you, and they know that you have sent me. 26 I have made you known to them, and will continue to make you known in order that the love you have for me may be in them and that I myself may be in them.”

[Anonymous No.14966606]

>>14966502
>Nonduality is never about belief and always about experience.
How can you know as an outsider whether or not a Christian monk experienced the specific Advaitin non-duality as opposed to what Orthodox theology describes? I'm still learning about Advaita, but don't they also presuppose the absolute divine nature of scripture as a guide towards liberation? Why would you then expect people with different cultures without access to their texts to be able to experience the exact same thing in such a systematic way?

[Anonymous No.14966676]

>>14966127
>You can't possibly reconcile Advaita with a metaphysic that outright posits _real_ distinctions at the absolute level of reality.
That's where you're wrong kiddo

[Anonymous No.14966776]

>>14966574
>The point of theosis is to become divinized while human.
Yes but our humanity in theosis is actualized isn't it? The whole process of this perfection is catharsis-theoria-theosis.

>God's essence itself is ineffable and unknowable, only his divine energies (operations) are known to us through the divine hypostases. Us participating in the essence would mean additional hypostases in the Godhead.
But aren't the Divine Hypostases in relation to the essence not by participation but by way of their own intimate union?

As for the vision of the Uncreated Light of God by living humans, sincerely I don't know what to say. I thought it could be actualized only after the proper process of post-salvation theosis. If living man reach it in life, does it mean he is already saved, clean of sins not only at that moment but also thenceforth?

[Anonymous No.14966947]

>>14966127
>So then either the Orthodox metaphysic is true... or.... the Advaita metaphysic is.
The Sufi Ibn Arabi wrote that the different religions disagree on the exoteric teachings but that it is in the esoteric spiritual teachings where they align. Despite what the different metaphysics say about difference, it is in immediate spiritual realization where there can be parallel experiences which are not fully communicable by language. The Advaita teachings are meant to be studied and followed by an esoteric order of monastics who have renounced everything, it would be fitting to compare it to some of the most important Eastern Orthodox writings on Theosis and mysticism like the Philokalia. Even if in Eastern Orthodox mysticism there is no complete union with God and continuance in that state until death as in Advaita they can still be somewhat reconciled to Advaita as in his works such as his Gita commentary Shankara explains that God ordains different direct and indirect paths to Him for people of varying dispositions like Jnana-Yoga, Bhakti-Yoga etc, and hence that following paths different from those focused on by Shankara can still play their role in the approach to God.

.>"The Logos of God is like a grain of mustard seed (cf. Matt. I3:3I) : before cultivation it looks extremely small, but when cultivated in the right way it grows so large that the highest principles of both sensible and intelligible creation come like birds to revive themselves in it. For the principles or inner essences of all things are embraced by the Logos, but the Logos is not embraced by anything.
>The grain of mustard seed is the Lord, who by faith is sown spiritually in the hearts of those who accept Him. He who diligently cultivates the seed by practising the virtues moves the mountain of earth-bound pride and, through the power he has gained, he expels from himself the obdurate habit of sin. In this way he revives in him self the activity of the principles and qualities or divine powers present in the commandments, as though they were birds.

- Maximus the Confessor

>"My Self within my heart is smaller than a grain of rice, smaller than a grain of barley, smaller than a mustard seed, smaller than a grain of millet, smaller even than the kernel of a grain of millet. The Self in my heart is larger than the earth, larger than the mid-region, larger than heaven, and larger even than all these worlds."
>"He who is the sole creator, whose desires are the desires of all, whose odours are the odours of all, whose tastes are the tastes of all, who is everywhere, who has no sense organs, and who is free from desires—he is my Self and is in my heart. He is no other than Brahman. When I leave this body, I shall attain him. He who firmly believes this has no doubt in his mind. This is what Śāṇḍilya has said."

- Chandogya Upanishad

[Anonymous No.14967161]

>>14964389
Do not join this server. They have a disgusting resident tranny and all they do is post about BBC, sissification, sex and egirls. It is totally opposed to Logos.

[Anonymous No.14967331]

>>14966676
>Catholic monk
Catholicism is a heresy of Christianity and ends up denying real distinction too. It's not surpsising to me that Catholics would try reconciling Advaita with their system.

[Anonymous No.14967582]

>>14966947
>The Sufi Ibn Arabi wrote that the different religions disagree on the exoteric teachings but that it is in the esoteric spiritual teachings where they align.
How do you distinguish between estoric and exoteric teaching? Is the historic bodily ressurection of Christ merely an exoteric teaching one can deny if he feels like it? In Orthodoxy, there is only one theology everyone holds to even if there are different paths for layity and monks. There are no separate layers of metaphysical knowledge one goes thorough as he advances spiritually. Even a lay person could conceivably practice hesychasm as it presents no new spiritual teachings about metaphysics/reality fundamentally inaccessible to the masses.
>in Eastern Orthodox mysticism there is no complete union with God
There is full union with the divine, but not with the Divine Essence which is truly ineffable and unknowable. We believe there is a true metaphysical distinction between the Divine Essence, between the Divine Energies and between the three persons of the Holy Trinity. So there is never a destruction/blending of our person/hypostasis with the impersonal divine. This even applies to Christ himself, he is never blended into the Divine Essence and is always distinct (but not separated/detached) from it.
>Maximus the Confessor
To claim that he teaches Advaita with a different spin is impossible to argue in good faith, as you would need to assume that he doesn't understand/believe in Christianity as a metaphysical truth. He even argued that reality itself is fundamentally patterned on the Holy Trinity, and he believes that the Divine Persons are truly and metaphysically distinct from each other as an absolute metaphysical reality. If you want to believe in Advaita as a Christian, you have to posit another monadic/non-dual "layer" of reality above even the distinctions in the Holy Trinity, which no Orthodox Christian and especially no Orthodox monk/elder would ever agree with.
Concerning similarities in language, we don't deny that even pagans historically have had part of the truth. They're still made in God's image after all and long for him. But we ultimately cannot believe that non-Christians can have correct teaching in its fullness without revelation, and I think any internally consistent system simply has to assume something similar if it doesn't want to fall into some form of relativism.

[Anonymous No.14967660]

>>14966419
>But I don't understand how a complete confusion, dissolution into an all-engulfing impersonal oneness
Is that really an even-handed portrayal of Advaita? Have you read Shankara? Can you point to anything specific he ever wrote which is confusing? Advaita does not teach that there is any confusion or anything confusing when one realizes the non-difference of God and the Self, but Self-knowledge is held to be a perfect knowledge, a divine illumination which permanently uproots and destroys all vestiges of ignorance and confusion. The Self (Soul) does not undergo "dissolution" and there is not a confusing melting of a multiplicity of souls into an all-engulfing ocean which snuffs out their individuality; instead what is taught in Advaita is that one's innermost Self is rather completely identical with and non-different from God, and that in liberation one realizes the actual divine nature of the Self. Both before and after the death of the body the same Self of the aspirant is already identical with God in His undivided totality and when the body falls there is no difference in or dissolution of one's Soul, rather its true nature as the Infinite is able to shine forth completely unobscured.

[Anonymous No.14967685]

>>14967660
Absolute nonsense. Especially in light of reincarnation nonsense.

Is there any Indian materialisms?

[Anonymous No.14967699]

>>14963340
Ignore the hindu hating autist. He post these same copy pasta comments in every hindu thread.

[Anonymous No.14967731]

>>14967582
>To claim that he teaches Advaita
I never stated that he taught Advaita, I was merely highlighting some parallels in the language of both texts, the implication of what I wrote was actually that even doctrines which disagree with Advaita on the nature of ultimate truth and reality can still possess a certain spiritual validity from the perspective of Advaita, because as a school it admits the existence of other valid paths to God aside from the path of knowledge taught by Advaita such as the paths of devotion or of selfless work which are outlined in the Bhagavad-Gita.

[Anonymous No.14967745]

>>14967685
>Especially in light of reincarnation nonsense.
reincarnation/transmigration was shown to be more likely to be real than not by the research of Dr. Ian Stevenson

>Towards the end of her own storied life, the physicist Doris Kuhlmann-Wilsdorf—whose groundbreaking theories on surface physics earned her the prestigious Heyn Medal from the German Society for Material Sciences, surmised that Stevenson’s work had established that “the statistical probability that reincarnation does in fact occur is so overwhelming … that cumulatively the evidence is not inferior to that for most if not all branches of science.”

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

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/bering-in-mind/ian-stevensone28099s-case-for-the-afterlife-are-we-e28098skepticse28099-really-just-cynics/

https://www.near-death.com/reincarnation/research/ian-stevenson.html

https://med.virginia.edu/perceptual-studies/who-we-are/dr-ian-stevenson/

[Anonymous No.14967793]

>>14967745
>Material Sciences
OH NO NO NO NO

[Anonymous No.14967818]

>>14967793
I was merely trying to help the hylics by engaging them with material more suitable to their own level, fear not brother

[Anonymous No.14967872]

Personality means mask. God can't play with himself unless he pretends. The the ungrund and the Divine Abyss are the same thing. God can't be known. Mask hide. The son is fully God and fully human. He is the second person. Therefore we are both microtheos and microcosm. Humans are souls and souls are the cosmos. Christians cannot apply materialism as the basis of what a human is. Essence is just a word. Energy is just a word. This unknowable essence is the Divine Abyss, the ungrund, the godhead. There appears to be distinctions and there's the possibility for Energies because the inner process of God is the trinity. So God is revealing himself and emptying himself but there is no such thing as a difference between the godhead and the trinity. And so Christianity claims a Transcendent monotheism and dualism. Negative mysticism goes back, positive mysticism goes forward. The cosmos is the becoming part of God. The Divine is the Divine necessity that kick-started this process that emptied himself and revealed the cosmos. There is neither male nor female in Christ. The male is the Divine, the female is the cosmos. The true image of God is male-female. God is killing extra time. There is no difference between the fullness of the trinity and the godhead. But God contemplates himself as Trinity. The essence cannot be known. It's called negative theology.

[Anonymous No.14968142]

Friendly reminder that we shouldn't take the system as the reality because they are just the finger pointing at the Moon. "Tell me the reality is better than the dream
But I found out the hard way,
Nothing is what it seems!"

[Anonymous No.14968208]

I suppose one great thing about Buddhism is that they attempt to not attach to many different things that other systems do. In theory A potential advantage in that is that you won't get religious people who are zealous for their religion and who defend it no matter what. And those people may not try to see some kind of underpining life but rather have attached themselves to the tree of knowledge of Good and Evil wherein there are both images of the truth and Shadows of the truth. The true Seeker must seek after the Tree of Life. But we all have to start somewhere. a system of non-attachment is already something that you can attach yourself to. Authoritarianism is a powerful attachment of many people. This is one thing that I think keeps Christians trapped in their little bubble of Christianity wherein they claim theirs is the truth and no others is equal to theirs. And so wisely Max striner even shit upon the idea of the truth. Because in fact the truth you know can be a kind of spook to you. It's the whole "monkey got his hand stuck in a hole because he refuses to let go of the sugar cube inside of it." Don't be a monkey.

[Anonymous No.14968261]

>>14968208
>wisely
>Max striner
stopped reading right there.

[Anonymous No.14968450]

>>14968261
There are pros and cons to most things. The purity of your heart will lead you correctly. Impurity will have you to dwell constantly in the mire. I try not to reject anything if I can find truth in it but if it seems worthless to me then I treat it as such. Not Everyone likes all foods, that's just how things are.

[Anonymous No.14969743]

bump