/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.14984548]

Adi Shankara, the founder of a systematic, philosophical system for the Hindus, died at the age of thirty three.

He became enlightened somewhere about the age of seven. When he was seven his father had died. He was the son of a poor father, a poor brahmin;the mother was only living for him, the only son. At the age of seven, Adi Shankara asked his mother that he wanted torenounce the world. Can you conceive of a child of seven years old thinking of renouncing the world? – must be another Mozart, a Mozart of spirituality. The mother said, ”Your father has died and you want to renounce the world. Don’t you think of me?” Adi Shankara said, ”I can only promise you one thing: before you die I will be present, so in your last moments you can die peacefully. But right now, allow me to renounce the world. I want to become a sannyasin and to go in search.” The mother refused. Not to hurt her, Shankara remained for a few days more. One day he went to the river. He used to go for his bath every day, but that day he insisted that his mother should also come with him.

The mother was a little concerned: why he was so insistent? But when he became absolutely adamant that ”if you don’t come, I will not go for the bath. Then I cannot worship and then I cannot eat either,” so the mother had to go. The mother was standing on the river bank and the little child, seven years old, was caught by a crocodile. A crowd gathered, but there was nothing that could be done. Both the feet of the boy were inside the mouth of the crocodile, and Shankara shouted to the mother, ”Now there are only two possibilities: either you give me permission to renounce the world and become a sannyasin or the crocodile is going to eat me. It is up to you to decide. Be quick!”
It is a strange story. How did the crocodile conspire in this? And the mother of course immediately shouted, ”I allow you, you can become a sannyasin. Even this much will be a solace to me, that you are still alive.”And the story goes that the crocodile immediately left him and disappeared. Must have been a very saintly crocodile... Whatever the case – perhaps it is only a parable – one thing is certain: that Adi Shankara at the age of seven must have convinced his mother that either she had to allow him to be a sannyasin or she had to be ready for his death. How he managed it, that is a different matter.But one thing is certain: he gave her the clear-cut choice, either death or sannyas. Obviously the poor mother had no choice; she allowed him. At the age of seven, Adi Shankara became a sannyasin. In the whole history of the world there is no other case parallel to Shankara.

[Anonymous No.14984550]

Somewhere between the age of seven and eleven – there is no historical record of it, but it seems just between seven and eleven – he must have become enlightened. At the age of eleven he started writing his great commentaries on the UPANISHADS, and on one of the greatest and most
complicated scriptures that exists in India, Badrayana’s BRAHMASUTRAS.

At the age of eleven it is almost impossible even to understand it – and Shankara wrote the greatest commentary. It has defeated all the great commentators of the past and all the great commentators that came after him. Nobody has been able to go beyond these flights of consciousness and bring such tremendous meaning to the almost dead scripture of Badrayana, BRAHMASUTRAS.
The way he interprets is possible only after enlightenment. Each small word... the way he gives a turn to its meaning. Something which was looking very ordinary immediately becomes extraordinary. He has the touch that transforms everything into gold. By the time he was thirty-three, he had written all the great commentaries on all the great scriptures, and he had traveled all over the country and defeated all the so-called great philosophers, theologians, priests. At the age of thirty-three he died. Consciousness is not limited to your physical age. Consciousness can go far ahead of you, your body.

[Anonymous No.14984568]

>>14984548
Reminder to the class that the cultleader in the OPs pic was responsible for overseeing an organization that:
1) Carried out the largest bio-terror attack on US soil.
2) Embezzled donations to fund the his rolls-royce collection
3) Sexually abused numerous female followers, was OK with other individuals in the cult doing the same.

[Anonymous No.14984575]

Not OP but I was raised by Oshoites.
I have A LOT of problems with the movement and have mixed feelings of Osho, but I do recommend everyone at least read him, he will attempt to challenge your ideas, which is something we all should be doing.

[Anonymous No.14984598]

Hello? Based Department? Yeah, we found the leader.

[Anonymous No.14984614]

>>14984568
That's based and only makes me like him more. Sex is cringe tho.

[Anonymous No.14984802]

>>14984575
what are some problems with the movement that you observed?

[Anonymous No.14984804]

>>14984548
>>14984550
Why is his hair so grey at 33 or younger?

[Anonymous No.14984830]

>>14984804
the man who died at 33 lived in the 8th century, these sentences are from the recorded discourses of Osho who is the man in the picture

[Anonymous No.14985279]

for some reason im surprised osho would say this

[Anonymous No.14985315]

>>14984614
The sex part was the only based thing in that list bud

[Anonymous No.14985382]

Watch the Netflix documentary on this crazy fucker and his followers it's really good

[Anonymous No.14985401]

>>14985279
watch him critic the fuck out of schizo jung and jew freud

[Anonymous No.14985477]

>>14984614
he didn't abuse any female. It's just christcucks that are incels and seethe

[Anonymous No.14985691]

>>14984575
he's literally just a generic bullshit guru. India is full of these wankers, well-read guys with impressive beards preaching "dude just begom urself man p.s. sex [including with me] is Good" , has been for its entire history, "Osho" just got in on the ground floor in the US.

[Anonymous No.14985752]

I thought Oshofag was banished to the shadow realm. Like seriously got btfo hard.

[Anonymous No.14985765]

>>14984802
It fell apart HARD after Osho's death.
infighting tore it apart, people hated it'sreputation as a murdercult and wanted topurge the old guard.

Spacebar brokenbythe waysorry.

[Anonymous No.14985794]

>>14985765
also itwas waytoomuch focused onsex.
People used toquoteOshocalling out his disciples for thninking he runs free sex palorwhen he just thought there was nothing worng withhaving sex

[Anonymous No.14985800]

>>14985765
>spacebar broken
Sure thing, Cormac.

[Anonymous No.14985853]

>>14984548
The most important aspect of all of this is. Does he advocate for usage of modern western toilets?

[Anonymous No.14985910]

>>14985853
theres actuallyaquote somewhnere where hetalks about the horribleness of indias shit covered streetsand the atrocity of their sanitaitonsystem

[Anonymous No.14985938]

>>14985853
western toilets suck though.
I mean better than no toilets and shit streets but they harm the bowells over the long term.

[Anonymous No.14985952]

>>14985794
now that said if you wanted to get laid...
Well lets just say put theentirety of /r9k/there for a day and we have no more /r9k/

[Anonymous No.14986810]

>>14985794
were people having sex at the meetings?

[Anonymous No.14987314]

>>14985315
Shut up bugman. Embezzling money to buy cars, and attacking the land of the Kali Yuga is based. Fuck America, and fuck you.

[Anonymous No.14987410]

>>14984550
>He has the touch that transforms everything into gold. By the time he was thirty-three, he had written all the great commentaries on all the great scriptures, and he had traveled all over the country and defeated all the so-called great philosophers, theologians, priests
based!

[Anonymous No.14988042]

>>14985952
osho could have cured the incel problem
He promoted free love free sex

[Anonymous No.14988260]

idk anything about osho but looks like he completely btfo jung so hard it should be a lit sticky

[Anonymous No.14988306]

>>14984548
>retard spout out the usual shit that appeals to miwits
>literal poo
>he was enlightened

hhmmmmmmmmmmmmm

[Anonymous No.14988309]

>>14985315
ok coomer or whore

[Anonymous No.14989089]

>>14985691
Literally this

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!DqDkzAt12xo No.14989150]

>>14985938
>harm the bowells over the long term.
how

[Anonymous No.14989177]

>>14989150
Are you real butterfly? Post a sulfie

[Anonymous No.14989677]

>>14988260
I got into him because BTFO Jung, Freud and Jews.

[Anonymous No.14989957]

>>14985794
>>14985800
lmao

[Anonymous No.14989970]

Shankara is based. Guenon is based. How can this be a coincidence brothers? Guenon said nothing but what Shankara said and Shankara says only what is the truth of the Upanishads... Listen not to CRINGE HYLICS. Remember to stay in touch with your brothers and discuss ideas for posts

[Anonymous No.14990116]

*blocks your path*

[Anonymous No.14990136]

>>14990116
Shankaracharya (pbuh) refuted Buddhism

[Anonymous No.14990192]

>>14990136
He just restated what Buddha wrote and called it Adviata

[Anonymous No.14990200]

>>14990192
CRINGE

>>14990136
Based.. where do I start with Shankara

[Anonymous No.14990221]

>>14990192
Buddha mostly just repeated what was in the early Upanishads predating him, see pic related which shows how dependent origination, the 4 noble truths, the 3 characteristics and other Buddhist teachings all appear first in the earlier Hindu scriptures

>>14990200
enjoy brother

https://estudantedavedanta.net/Eight-Upanisads-Vol-1.pdf
https://estudantedavedanta.net/Eight-Upanisads-vol2.pdf

[Anonymous No.14990233]

>>14990221
but this is incorrect

[Anonymous No.14990239]

>>14990221
Based, Shankara refuted Buddhism and Guenon did as well... Buddhism is cringe. Disregard the hylics and read Shankara and Guenon. Read the refutations. Read the commentaries on the Upanishads. Become based, not cringe. This is the message of /lit/... Thank you brother

[Anonymous No.14990249]

>>14990233
I told you to stop posting this you fucking idiot. I've refuted this image a thousand times.

You really are pathetic. Buddhists make me sick. No wonder you are compelled to troll Guenon threads all day like this. You have no arguments. You are refuted every time. So you harass and troll people and won't stop. Pathetic losers.

[Anonymous No.14990268]

>>14990233
>but this is incorrect
nope, the early Upanishads came first and talked about all these ideas, then Buddha tried to do his own spinoff version that degenerated into a bunch of retarded schools all of whom had illogical ideas, and then Shankaracharya came along and restored the truth and purity of the Upanishadic doctrine while refuting all of the imposter fakers claiming to have true wisdom like the Buddhists and Jains

[Anonymous No.14990715]

The old words were destroyed, new words were born; there was much inference and denial for fifteen hundred years. By the time Shankara came Buddha's influence was everywhere.

But then the same fate happened to Buddha's scriptures which had happened to the Upanishads and the Vedas. Buddha's scriptures died, they became well-trodden tracks. They became mere scholarship that was only worthy of discussion in the universities. Now there was no life in them, they were no longer useful even for a seeker - what to say about the awakened ones? Only intellectual analysis had become important.

Then Shankara changed the direction of the flood again. Shankara said that truth is not absolute emptiness, it is absolute fullness, it is brahman.

After a gap of fifteen hundred years this word fullness came back with a freshness, the Upanishads received new life and the Vedas re-emerged into the light. Shankara re-established all that Buddha had destroyed.

And you will be surprised that both are doing the same work. Neither is Buddha destroying the Upanishads nor is Shankara saving them. Buddha is saving the very essence, the very soul of the Upanishads, and Shankara is also doing the same. What they are destroying is just the outer shell because it always becomes dirty.

It is the same as when you want to put new clothes on a child and he is not ready to remove the old ones. He says, "I am attached to them. I like this shirt very much. I don't want to wear the new one." But you know that it has become dirty: "It has become old, it has holes in it - so take it off." The child thinks that perhaps you just want him to go naked. How can he wander around naked in the heat and sun and cold? Why are you after his clothes? He loves them, he holds on to them. But once you have changed his clothes then he becomes happy that he has new clothes. His walk changes, now he walks with joy. But after a year the same thing happens. Those clothes also become old; then again the moment to change them comes.

The awakened ones are not against anybody - they cannot be - because in their awakening their experience is that of absolute oneness. So neither is Shankara against Buddha nor is Buddha against Shankara. Both of them are saying the same thing, only their expressions are different.

And you say that I support both of them. This is true. This is worth asking, this is absolutely relevant. Now even the differences between the two of them have become meaningless. It is now twenty-five hundred years after Buddha and a thousand years after Shankara: now the differences between the two of them have become stale. Now the communication between them should get a new start. Now someone is needed who says that there is no difference, that both are saying the same thing.

[Anonymous No.14991199]

>>14990239
that one schizo goooanon poster