/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.15621088]

>solves philosophy

[Anonymous No.15621105]

Is it nihilism to consider all existence suffering? Because it seems so, but then Buddhism isn't practiced exclusively by emos and Rick and Morty fans

[Anonymous No.15621114]

>>15621088
>intellectual says he defeated other intellectuals

cringe af

[Anonymous No.15621126]

>>15621105
>Is it nihilism to consider all existence suffering?
why would it be. Nihilism is an invention of the bored humanist bourgeois claiming to be ''''''''''''enlightened'''''''''''200 years ago

[Anonymous No.15621134]

>>15621126
Yeah I suppose you do have to question the validity of a philosophy about 70% of teenagers come up with on their own

[Anonymous No.15621227]

>>15621105
>Is it nihilism to consider all existence suffering?
Only if there is no higher meaning or purpose to any of it. Shankara (the man in OP's pic) is not nihilistic because his tradition says that although life contains misery that there is a higher meaning which is liberation and the ensuing union with God. Buddhism is sometimes nihilistic when people subscribe to a version of it where there is no inherent meaning to anything and people are just supposed to annihilate themselves like lemmings jumping into the void.

[Anonymous No.15621320]

I love Advaita as much as the next advaitin, but we have to admit Samkhya has the best description of existence in history and without it's backbone we wouldn't have Vedanta or Buddhism.

[Anonymous No.15621322]

>>15621088
Shitskin hindu cope

[Anonymous No.15621633]

>>15621320
>but we have to admit Samkhya has the best description of existence in history
Have you read Shankara's or any other Vedantin's criticisms of Samkhya such as in their Brahma Sutra commentaries on the verses attacking Samkhya? I also find Samkhya interesting and I understand how it was very influential in Indian philosophy but in Shankara's and other Vedantin's works for example it's pointed out that there are all these contradictions in the Samkhya explanation of existence. I'm not aware of any extensive response to or rebuttal of these criticisms by Samkhya adherents. I'm not trying to start an argument over who's right or wrong, but I guess I'm just curious on what your thoughts are on those debates and why you consider Samkhya such a good explanation in light of the questions which have been raised about its metaphysics such as there being nothing which can lead to creation by inducing the initial disruption of the equilibrium of the gunas in the pradhana since the purusa is passive etc. It's not often that you meet people into Samkhya, most people gravitate towards Vedanta, Tantra, Buddhism etc so I'm curious, do you feel like Samkhya was misunderstood and the criticisms of it by other Indian philosophers are unwarranted or do you think they had a point but that Samkya is still great in spite of them?

[Anonymous No.15621894]

>>15621633
Samkhya uses the cyclical evolution and involution of the manifested Tattvas from and back into Prakriti as a natural phenomena which leads to the formation of Jivas, when Prakriti encounters Purushas, while Vedantins resort to calling Maya the result of Brahman's energies, an argument which works well with Ramanuja's Vishsistadvaita (and his Vishnu) and a bit awkward with Advaita and it's Niguna Brahman (hence all the non-dualist Shaiva sects that find different ways of bypassing this paradox). I myself am a fencesitter, since I consider the Samkhya ontology as perfect, but still believe Advaita is end result of it's practice.

[Anonymous No.15622164]

>>15621894
Have you read any of Vijnanabikshu? You may find it interesting, he attempts to rehabilitate Yoga, theistic Samkhya and Bhedebheda Vedanta togather as all being a unified whole that only disagree superficially

[Anonymous No.15622231]

>>15622164
Yeah, I've read about the attempts to reconcile them and even the opinions that they naturally do not contradict eachtother and we just misunderstand them, and I can't help but find them silly when they resolve to mental gymnastics like "indistinguishable non dualism" or other ridiculous positions.
It's as clear as day that different and contradictory schools developed in ancient India, and even if they influenced eachother greatly (to the point of having common scriptures) they are still different philosophies that go at odds with eachother. So you either pick one as right and consider the rest misguided, go the "different views of the same elephant" route or just study and cherish them all because you realise that they all offer uniquely valuable revelations about existence. But trying to force fit them all into one big "consistent" philosophy just doesn't work.

[Anonymous No.15622502]

>>15621227
Annihilationism is anti-buddhist and was refuted multiple times in the Buddhosphere

[Anonymous No.15622640]

>>15621322
Advaita is the sublime culmination and perfection of Indo-European Vedic Aryan metaphysics. If Indo-European thought in Europe had not been supplanted and then violently suppressed by Abrahamic thought then the Greek or Druidic teachings might have eventually developed into an initiatic school of metaphysics on par with the Vedanta, but sadly this didn't happen and they were consigned to history.

[Anonymous No.15622679]

>>15622502
that doesn't stop many modern Buddhists and /lit/ Buddhists from subscribing to an annihilationist reading of Buddhism

[Anonymous No.15622699]

>copies buddhism

[Anonymous No.15622707]

>>15622679
>some retards think buddhism is X thing which is completely contradictory to Buddhist philosophy
is this supposed to be an argument or something?

[Anonymous No.15622728]

Sorry I don't care for some crypto buddhist / atheist fag

Philosophy was solved in 1977 by his Divine Grace A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada the eternal Guru, who Krishna spoke directly to us through.

Hare Krishna Hare Krishna
Krishna Krishna
Hare Hare
Hare Rama Hare Rama
Rama Rama
Hare Hare

[Anonymous No.15622752]

>>15621320
I thought the three gunas were the constituents of prakriti and all its evoluted, not evolutes themselves.

[Anonymous No.15622774]

>>15622728
>tfw so redpilled that even the supposed based Russian Orthodox Church tried to ban my edition of the Bhagavad Gita on grounds that it preaches extremism, violence and bigotry

[Anonymous No.15622797]

And even then Madhyamika did not get the full picture. Yogacara and the Tathagatagarbha sutras did that

[Anonymous No.15622812]

>>15622707
No, it's an observation

[Anonymous No.15622826]

>>15622679
>annihilationist reading of Buddhism
only one who does that is the schizo advaitafag who repeats that same arguments about nirvana being an annihilation and accuses everyone else of misconstruing nirvana as being something other than annihilation despite the fact that the Buddha himself declared otherwise.

[Anonymous No.15622859]

>>15622797
>Yogacara and the Tathagatagarbha sutras did that
mahayana is wrong view, even worse than vedism

[Anonymous No.15622864]

>>15622752
They're not evolutes. Ot's just considered that the 11 organs are predominantly sattvasic (some consider the action organs as primarly rajasic), while the 5 subtle and 5 gross elements are mostly tamasic.

[Anonymous No.15622871]

what is wrong with picking and choosing what makes sense to you? needs more hegelian dialectic and ug skepticism in here

[Anonymous No.15622885]

>>15622859
Mahayana is skillful means and is all based on Suttas and practice, so idk what you're talking about

[Anonymous No.15622891]

>>15622826
>Buddha himself declared otherwise
I agree with you. But the Buddha said nothing tangible about Nirvana so the Mahayanists invented their totally-not-atman-and-empty-of-existence-atman and other people just interpreted the elimination of the constituents as meaning annihilation, since Nirvana is stated as being self-less. So yeah, I agree with you, Buddha specifically said Nirvana is not nihilism, but he left such a big gap that people had to come up with something of their own.

[Anonymous No.15623111]

>>15622891
>I agree with you. But the Buddha said nothing tangible about Nirvana
This is a protestant view of buddhism

[Anonymous No.15623272]

>>15622891
who exactly interpreted Nirvana as annihilation? Mahayana concoctions themselves didn't lead to such conclusions in the eyes of mahayanists.

[Anonymous No.15623325]

>>15622699
what's Buddhist about a Smith chart?

[Anonymous No.15623347]

>>15623325
>taking memes seriously
ngmi

[Anonymous No.15623379]

>>15623347
>taking buddhism seriously

[Anonymous No.15623384]

>>15623379
>taking buddhism seriously
based

[Anonymous No.15623386]

>>15621088
>solves philosophy

[Anonymous No.15623387]

>>15621322
Can you go back to your containment board? Adults are discussing non dualism, you won't understand

[Anonymous No.15623411]

>>15622728
Can someone redpill me on Prabhupada? Was he a crypto Jesuit?

[Anonymous No.15623415]

>>15622885
this

Yogacara and the Tathagatagarbha sutras are just conventional teachings, thats why they didn't get the full picture and simply tried to appease atman copers.

Madhyamaka is the ultimate teaching.

[Anonymous No.15623416]

>>15621322
based

[Anonymous No.15623578]

>>15623111
>This is a protestant view of buddhism
No Theravada sutta describes Nirvana in any concrete way, and Mahayana ones are far from tradition.

>>15623272
Not Mahayanists, but Buddhism's adversaries quickly took advantage of this soft spot in the metaphysics.

[Anonymous No.15623592]

>>15623411
He was a cult leader, full of charisma but devoid of any meaningful spirituality. He basically preached Christianity but with Krishna instead of Jesus and with reincarnation and hippies took the bait.

[Anonymous No.15623604]

>>15623578
>No Theravada sutta describes Nirvana in any concrete way, and Mahayana ones are far from tradition.
Mahayana accept everything Theravadans do

[Anonymous No.15623615]

>>15623592
This is a meme, he is part of a long tradition with many fundamental differences to Christianity

[Anonymous No.15623646]

>>15623615
Yes, genealogically he's part of the bhakti movement, but this didn't stop him from turning vedanta into crypto-christianity.

[Anonymous No.15623663]

>>15623415
>Yogacara and the Tathagatagarbha sutras are just conventional teachings, thats why they didn't get the full picture and simply tried to appease atman copers.
Early Yogachara regarded itself as an improvement upon and as a superceding of Madhyamaka, which they criticized in their writings

>Madhyamaka is the ultimate teaching.
Why then did almost all Mahayana/Vajrayana schools adopt a melange of Yogachara, Pure Land and Tantric (i.e. Shaivite) teachings in addition to Madhyamaka instead of just sticking with Madhyamaka? If only these Buddhist schools throughout the centuries had the expertise of modern 4chan posters they would have saved all that time they wasted on conventional teachings, it's a shame.

[Anonymous No.15623982]

>>15623411
Nothing to do with Jesuits.

>came to the US when he was like 77 years old.
>2 heart attacks
>Hitler predicted his coming
>boat he arrived on had a swastika on the front.
>alone chanted the holy name of the lord in cental park
>built a movement of Traditional Vedic spirituality in the west.
>scared the shit out of the jew world order

[Anonymous No.15623987]

>>15621105
Nihilism is the pure result of undirect boredom directly caused by modern leisure given to us by advancing technology. In other words, its worthless

[Anonymous No.15624325]

>>15623578
>Buddhism's adversaries quickly took advantage of this soft spot in the metaphysics
...by misconstruing it to smithereens

[Anonymous No.15624328]

>>15623982
>2 heart attacks
you listed that like it's a good thing

[Anonymous No.15624362]

>>15623663
>Early Yogachara regarded itself as an improvement upon and as a superceding of Madhyamaka, which they criticized in their writings
unfortunately Yogachara missed the mark

>f only these Buddhist schools throughout the centuries had the expertise of modern 4chan posters they would have saved all that time they wasted on conventional teachings, it's a shame.
I agree

[Anonymous No.15624372]

>>15624328
Surviving heart attacks unscathed is pretty based

[Anonymous No.15624401]

>>15624325
I know right? How unfair of them, I can't believe they didn't accept that one's conciousness and being are completely based on transient aggregates which are obliderated and don't continue in Parinirvana, and that there are no sensations, awareness or anything else in Parinirvana that distinguishes it from nothingness; they would see that this is not annihilation and that they are misconstruing Buddhism if only they had known that.... that... Buddha said it wasn't annihilation which proves that it isn't lmao!

[Anonymous No.15624419]

>>15621633
>have you read so and so's criticism?
>this contradicted that, argumentation etc. etc.
>please find me an 'extensive' rebuttal in which he logically rebuts the logically consistent metaphysical positions about argumentative criticismisms of my Vedanta
cringe

[Anonymous No.15624454]

>>15624325
>by misconstruing it to smithereens
You can not misconstruct something that wasn't constructed in the first place. Buddha said "Nirvana is not nihilism, source: trust me bro". It can easily be attacked as nihilism if you read the fragments of description he gave. So whether Nirvana is nihilistic or not, you probably gotta be an arhat to know, but for the rest of us, who read the suttas, it's pretty much similar to nihilism.

[Anonymous No.15624469]

>>15621088
no, he does not.

[Anonymous No.15624487]

>>15624401
you're finally getting it, shame that Vedantists didn't

>>15624454
>Buddha said "Nirvana is not nihilism, source: trust me bro"
>for the rest of us, who read the suttas
you got more reading to do

[Anonymous No.15624507]

>>15621105
Shankara was a Hindu, not a Buddhist.

Anyways, the First Noble Truth is more accurately translated as "suffering is". Suffering is a part of life. Dukkha is the result of impermanence, we live in an impermanent world, as long as there is impermanence there will be suffering. "Life is suffering" is a flawed translation that literally any Buddhism 101 book will elaborate on for you.

>>15622891
Incorrect, see The Mind Like Fire Unbound. The Buddha was pretty clear about Nirvana. If you don't like that it's a transcendental state beyond conceptuality, then I have no clue what you're doing shilling for Advaita Vedanta because even a cursory look at it will demonstrate that it's just as mystic and focused on just as transcendental states as Buddhism is.

[Anonymous No.15624540]

>>15624454
>"Nirvana is not nihilism, source: trust me bro"
You do realize he elaborates on why this is, right? Nagarjuna wrote an entire book restating what he said.

It's pretty clear you haven't done any reading on this subject. I recommend What the Buddha Taught, followed by Red Pine's Heart Sutra. Both are good Buddhism 101s. As for Hinduism, Gavin Flood's An Introduction to Hinduism is pretty good, there's tons of articles on the internet by all sorts of Pajeets explaining the basics.

[Anonymous No.15624557]

>>15624454
are you the "anything that isnt my incredibly autistic variant of zoroastrianism is nihilism" guy? "nihilism" doesnt mean nondual, you fucking sperg.

[Anonymous No.15624565]

>>15624507
>Shankara was a Hindu, not a Buddhist.
I mean...

[Anonymous No.15624590]

>>15624557
he's the advaitafag who kept pushing the 'nirvana is just oblivion bro' meme for the past couple of months like a broken record. As per usual he tries and fails to impress anyone.

[Anonymous No.15624594]

>>15624557
>are you the "anything that isnt my incredibly autistic variant of zoroastrianism is nihilism"
No, and as I said, I don't personally believe that Nirvana is nihilistic. All I'm saying is that, considering the scriptural description of Nirvana, Buddhism *can* be successfully attacked as nihilistic if one takes the time to built the case.

[Anonymous No.15624604]

It's funny how these threads attract the same 3 autists everytime.

[Anonymous No.15624605]

>>15624594
next you'll bring up burton's book, watch

[Anonymous No.15624625]

>>15624594
>Buddhism *can* be successfully attacked as nihilistic if one takes the time to built the case.
No it can't. The Buddha lays out why this isn't the case. The only reason to think this is if you're regurgitating literal 19th century Fundamentalist missionary memes from back when the religion was "Amidism", the devil's heinous trick to try and hoodwink Cathay into worshiping him instead of Jesus.

Even by the lay definition of "lmfao nothing matters bro", Buddhism isn't nihilistic. Nihilism (in its technical and lay definitions) is called out by the Buddha as being a Wrong View, as are Annihilationism (nothing exists or is real) and Eternalism (obvious). The only argument you can make is "I don't know what the Buddha said, but the memes say...".

At best you can come up with some zany schizo definition by which anything that isn't explicit dualism is "nihilistic", but then every religion (including all forms of Christianity, and Advaita Vedanta) are also "nihilistic".

[Anonymous No.15624636]

>>15624557
>are you the "anything that isnt my incredibly autistic variant of zoroastrianism is nihilism" guy?
That's me, and you misinterpret me. I'm arguing any nondual, monotheist, or monist metaphysics ultimately implies a degree of antinomianism, which logically entails nihilistic sensibilities. There was a tradition of dualism that has largely vanished, but remnants of it still exist. I recommend reading Mardanfarrox's Doubt-dispelling exposition. In my view, not even in the highest levels of realization do good and evil blur or be shown as unreal.

[Anonymous No.15624642]

>>15621088
Buddhism is fot degenerates whos mind is weak and easily struck by fancy weird eastern words and names.

[Anonymous No.15624657]

>>15624419
Glad I wasn't the only one who noticed Hindus obsession with 'le facts and logic xD'. Seems like Buddhists irl dont really give a fuck about fruitless debates that go nowhere where as Pajeets revel in this sort of sophistry.

[Anonymous No.15624661]

>>15624642
wow you sound like a retard

[Anonymous No.15624704]

>>15624625
>The only reason to think this is if you're regurgitating literal 19th century Fundamentalist missionary memes from back when the religion was "Amidism", the devil's heinous trick to try and hoodwink Cathay into worshiping him instead of Jesus.
>At best you can come up with some zany schizo definition by which anything that isn't explicit dualism is "nihilistic", but then every religion (including all forms of Christianity, and Advaita Vedanta) are also "nihilistic".
I mean, I like how you fight your imaginary fights with opponents you tailor as per your fantasies, but that doesn't help. The five aggregates ar described as impermanent, unsatisfactory and self-less, which makes them void of existence. Nibbana then is described as eternal (non-conditionee), but still lacking a self. The only thing separating it from nihilism is the "eternal" attribute, which implies a state of being beyond what languace can describe by "state" and "being", which for me is fair enough, as I said, I get what the Buddha meant and I don't see it as nihilism. But for an advaitin wanting to attack it's rival school and a westerner who brings to the table his own views about existence, that description of a self-less Nibbana makes it a very vulnerable target for the accusation of nihilism.

[Anonymous No.15624708]

>>15624657
Historically, Buddhists didn't really care about Shankara because he was born a few centuries after Buddhism in India completely collapsed. The intellectual seat of Indian Buddhism, Gandhara, had been wrekt by Muslims, so the only Buddhist academic centers left were in China, SEA, Japan, Korea, Central Asia, etc, none of who cared about some random pajeet philosopher who never attempted to spread his ideas outside of India. He's sort of the Hindu equivalent of a Christian author writing scathing critiques of polytheism in the 1200s.

That's been one of the historical critiques of him from the Buddhist thinkers who did even know who he was, that he was working off of third hand understandings of Buddhism and didn't have access to Buddhists or Buddhist texts to work off of.

[Anonymous No.15624715]

>>15624661
you sound like pseud.

[Anonymous No.15624728]

>>15624704
>which makes them void of existence
No, it means they're void of SELF-Existence. They exist, just because of other things. This is exactly what I mean: the Buddha elaborates on what this means, but if you just throw your hands up and say "well, he says there's no eternal thing for me to cling to so I can live forever, ergo, NIHILISM, no point in reading further!" then of fucking course it's going to look like Nihilism if you don't actually look at the doctrine.

[Anonymous No.15624731]

>>15624487
>you're finally getting it,
Yes, the point is that a logical analysis of Nirvana points to it being an annihilation (unless you want to retreat to the "fire unbound" explanation which is weak because it has to be inferred instead of it being taught explicitly in the PC and its incompatible with Madhyamaka anyway), and the defense "Buddha said it's not annihilation therefore it's not" just means that you have to blindly accept nonsensical things as true on the basis of faith at which point the idea of Buddhism as being empiricism-based or some sort of rigorous philosophy goes out the window and it's just another faith-based religion.

[Anonymous No.15624745]

>>15624731
>instead of it being taught explicitly in the PC
It is explicitly in the Pali Canon. That's where TMLFU cites from. The book could be like a three page essay if it wasn't filled with quotations from the Pali Canon explaining this.

[Anonymous No.15624752]

>>15624715
is that your def mechanism when someone calls you out on the retarded shit you always spew out of your diarrhoea mouth retarded cunt?

[Anonymous No.15624764]

>>15624752
did I offend your ego which you are supposed to lose, faggot?

[Anonymous No.15624782]

>>15624764
wow you actually read it and you got offended by it imagine being owned that bad you pathetic shit cunt faggot retard.

[Anonymous No.15624797]

>>15624782
you sound like buddha, truest guru.

[Anonymous No.15624824]

>>15624731
>Nirvana is annihilation....unless you accept the Buddha's explanation
lol

I also like how you keep repeating that the Buddha simply stated Nirvana isn't annihilation, yet you accept that he explains it in the PC.

One more freudian slip in a long line of freudian slips you've made in previous threads. Good job.

[Anonymous No.15624831]

>>15624797
you think buddha wouldn't smack a fly if it was on his hand, think again homosexual

[Anonymous No.15624863]

>>15624824
none of you experienced nirvana, samadhi, but you argue what is it. you are very stupid idiots, true retards.

[Anonymous No.15624871]

>>15624745
>It is explicitly in the Pali Canon
Does he actually say "there is continuance in Parinirvana just as in the Indian cosmology fire continues in an omnipresent subtle form when an individual fire is extinguished", or does he merely say "Parinirvana is like a fire being extinguished" and then you read the rest of it into his words? Because there is a very big difference between those two and I have never seen any passages cited supporting the former

[Anonymous No.15624893]

>>15624824
>I also like how you keep repeating that the Buddha simply stated Nirvana isn't annihilation, yet you accept that he explains it in the PC.
No I don't, he doesn't explain why it's not an annihilation, he merely says that it's not. This is not a logical reason to believe that it's not an annihilation.

[Anonymous No.15624904]

>>15623411
No, he was a teacher in the Gaudiya Vaishnava tradition. They are a school that started in Bengal in the early 16th century, founded by Caitanya, an extatic devotee of Krishna. In Hindu terms, A.C. Bhaktivedanta was nothing special, just another religious teacher. He just happened to be an excellent marketer of his theology to the west, courting celebrities like George Harrison. However, the organisation he founded in the west, ISKCON, is very insular in theological terms, they reject any association with Hinduism and actively attack veneration of any god except Krishna. They've also had typical scandals involving corruption and sex that lots of organisations suffer from.

In interesting that they became huge in 70s counter-culture considering they are very conservative and oppose taking drugs, which run totally counter to the scene they were associated with.

[Anonymous No.15624935]

>>15624831
buddha would kill a fly with a hammer if it were on your face lol

[Anonymous No.15624939]

>>15624871
The Buddha refers to fire in the manner that all Ancient Indians referred to it, yes, including discussing it with several laymen who also explicitly refer to fire in the manner that all Ancient Indians saw fire.

Read The Mind Like Fire Unbound, the Buddha uses this analogy at length numerous times (dozens of paragraphs). This is not a one-off thing, this is a recurring theme. It's also found in Hindu literature as well. One Hindu Criticism was that well, the Buddha uses the fire analogy, and we all know what fire means as we are Indians, ergo fire=the Self, which the Buddha ALSO explains is not the case, in the same paragraphs that he uses the fire analogy.

>>15624893
Yes, he does. Several times. This is covered in The Mind Like Fire Unbound, among other sources. What the Buddha Taught is another. The Heart Sutra's commentaries also go into this, albeit out of the Heart Sutra's extreme brevity rather than any kind of autistic argumentation.

[Anonymous No.15624960]

>>15624935
are you gay?

[Anonymous No.15624968]

>>15624960
are you fly?

[Anonymous No.15624978]

>>15624968
guess you are

[Anonymous No.15624998]

im starting to think that these advaita fags are just buddhists false flagging to spread buddhism. ive lurked several of these threads and theres no way these idiots can keep saying wrong things about buddhism and then getting proven wrong thread after thread after thread. i refuse to believe anyone could possibly be that autistic.

like this exchange here>>15624893, >>15624939
>the buddha said nothing exists
>no, he didn't, here's where he pre-empted your saying hes wrong 2500 years ago
>that doesn't count
i swear i've seen this same fucking exchange like seven times.

[Anonymous No.15625009]

>at least 3 anons ITT mistook Shankara for Buddha
I wonder if it means something...

[Anonymous No.15625027]

>>15625009

theres this whole 'perennial philosophy' and this guy named 'hegel' that everyone in this thread would be better for reading

[Anonymous No.15625033]

Can someone explain to me how to even begin getting into this stuff? Where do I even start? Just glancing from this thread there seem to be like a hundred different meme schools of Buddhism/Hinduism/easternism with every one disagreeing with each other and calling each other crypto-this and crypto-that
What the fuck is even going on

[Anonymous No.15625056]

>>15625033
>how to even begin getting into this stuff?
Begin only if you are attracted spirituality to any of it. Studying Indian history, terminology and philosophy (which requires a start from 0 since it doesn't have equivalents in western thought) just to argue on /lit/ is not worth your time.

[Anonymous No.15625089]

>>15625033
Hinduism is the dominant religion of the Indian subcontinent. You can basically think of it as "The India equivelant of European Polytheism" in that it covers a LOT of religious traditions that only sort-of agree. The basic "point" of Hinduism at a bigbrain level is union with the all-pervasive divine.

Buddhism (and Jainism) both arose in the Indian intellectual currents and milieu, around 500BC, but are not strictly speaking "reactions" to Hinduism. Jainism is a very minor religion more of historical and philosophical note for completeness sake than actual impact (the Buddha was a proto-Jain for awhile and thought it sucked). Buddhism's main theme is that it denies an eternal unchanging Self (big S). Things only exist in relation to other pre-existing things (you were born because your parents fucked). As you can see, this does not jive with Hinduism.

Advaita Vedanta is a specific minor intellectual tradition arising in the 700sAD which seeks to purify and focus Hindu philosophical doctrine.

Shankara, who you can more or less view as the founder of Advaita Vedanta (this is not technically true but it works) attacked Buddhism, trying to demonstrate that the Buddha was ACTUALLY just a Hindu and everyone misunderstood him. He does this through what some view as an attempt to turn Hinduism into Buddhism, hence he is derogatorily referred to as a "Crypto-Buddhist" by those who say he failed at his aim (defeating Buddhism) to such a degree that he was actually doing the opposite (defeating Hinduism).

Confucianism, Shinto, and Taoism are three entirely unrelated religions that go on to be impact heavily by Buddhism, but do not at their founding have anything to do with Buddhism.

[Anonymous No.15625103]

>>15625033

personally i got started with a new agey occultmeditation book, figured out quickly that it was bullshit, and slowly started working my way through eastern thought. i imagine that 90% of the people here did something similar

[Anonymous No.15625149]

>>15622640
Gnosticism is the same shit but in less autistic terms

[Anonymous No.15625157]

>>15625089
>Advaita Vedanta is a specific minor intellectual tradition arising in the 700sAD
Brihadaranyaka Upanishad was written in 700BC, and it is heavily advaitic in it's metaphysical segments.

[Anonymous No.15625218]

>>15625157
>b-b-but muh upanishads
Of the Vedanta-school before the composition of the Brahma Sutras (400–450 CE[270]), wrote Nakamura in 1950, almost nothing is known.[270] The Upanishads form the basic texts, of which Vedanta gives an interpretation.[280] The Upanishads do not contain "a rigorous philosophical inquiry identifying the doctrines and formulating the supporting arguments".[281][note 22] This philosophical inquiry was performed by the darsanas, the various philosophical schools.[283][note 23]

[Anonymous No.15625229]

>>15625056
i started by googling my feelings while on mushrooms

[Anonymous No.15625250]

>>15621088
Who is that guy?

[Anonymous No.15625263]

>>15625218
Ah yes, the wikipedia copy paste. Seek better sources.

[Anonymous No.15625294]

>>15621088
No he didn't.

>There is nothing more futile than to consciously look for something to save you. But consciousness makes this fact seem otherwise. Consciousness makes it seem as if (1) there is something to do; (2) there is somewhere to go; (3) there is something to be; (4) there is someone to know. This is what makes consciousness the parent of all horrors, the thing that makes us try to do something, go somewhere, be something, and know someone, such as ourselves, so that we can escape our MALIGNANTLY USELESS being and think that being alive is all right rather than that which should not be.
-Thomas Ligotti

[Anonymous No.15625344]

>>15624939
>Read The Mind Like Fire Unbound, the Buddha uses this analogy at length numerous times (dozens of paragraphs). This is not a one-off thing, this is a recurring theme. It's also found in Hindu literature as well. One Hindu Criticism was that well, the Buddha uses the fire analogy, and we all know what fire means as we are Indians, ergo fire=the Self, which the Buddha ALSO explains is not the case, in the same paragraphs that he uses the fire analogy.

okay then riddle me this anon

1) The idea of Parinirvana being some eternal continuance like elemental fire returning to an omnipresent state is totally incompatible with Madhyamaka, how do you reconcile that? Do you reject Nagarjuna etc for not understanding that? Why does he not include this understanding of Nirvana in his works, or for that matter why is that view so rarely espoused clearly in the history of Buddhist philosophy except for some books in the 21st century? Did they all misunderstand Buddha?

2) Is the X that is the metaphorical fire which continues in Parinirvana conscious or non-conscious? If there is some X different from that aggregates that is eternal like fire why did Buddha refer to the aggregates as the "all-in-all" which implies there is nothing to the being besides them?

2A) if X has or is conciousness/awareness that continues forever then how is this not some sort of Atman and how does this differ substantially from what the Upanishads teach?

2B) if the X that is the metaphorical fire has no awareness, conciousness, sensations, sentience etc then how is that not an annihilation? That's really no different from saying "the material components of the body exist forever as lifeless matter but conciousness is annihilated", if a being's conciousness is extinguished and only unconcious and inert building blocks of the body survive that's not different in practice from an annihilation into nothingness. In both cases there is no entity, no sentience, no sensations etc and the conciousness and sentience of the living being are forever annihilated absolutely, whether or not some unconscious 'energy' or prana or building block or whatever survives eternally is completely irrelevant if it has no sentience.

You can either have an eternal Awareness that continues forever after liberation, which is basically the Upanishadic Atman, or you can have the individual's conciousness be extinguished and some non-alive and unconsciousness component of the being continue forever, which is indistinguishable from complete annihilation to that being, but I don't see how you can both have X not be an Atman but also Parinirvana not be an annihilation, that's like wanting to have your cake and eat it too.

[Anonymous No.15625377]

>>15625089
>trying to demonstrate that the Buddha was ACTUALLY just a Hindu and everyone misunderstood him
Shankara doesn't do this once in any of his works, he mostly just says Buddha's ideas are retarded. The actual people who do this are some 20th century scholars/writers like Coomaraswamy etc, you are confusing their views with Shankara's. Shankara in his works treats Buddhism as just another heresy to combat like Jainism, Charvaka etc. Stop posting misinformation

[Anonymous No.15625398]

>>15625250
Adi Shankara

[Anonymous No.15625489]

>>15625344
>I haven't read the book you're citing, but here's my take on it...
Read the book.

[Anonymous No.15625510]

>>15625218
>muh cherrypicked Nakamura
Although Shankara is often considered to be the founder of the Advaita Vedanta school, according to Nakamura, comparison of the known teachings of these early Vedantins and Shankara's thought shows that most of the characteristics of Shankara's thought "were advocated by someone before Śankara".[290] Shankara "was the person who synthesized the Advaita-vāda which had previously existed before him".[290] In this synthesis, he was the rejuvenator and defender of ancient learning.[291] He was an unequalled commentator,[291] due to whose efforts and contributions the Advaita Vedanta assumed a dominant position within Indian philosophy.[291]

It's literally a few lines below what you copy-pasted, so stop being dishonest.

[Anonymous No.15625514]

>>15625263
Nakamura is someone you cited before lol

[Anonymous No.15625567]

>>15624978
guess you are

[Anonymous No.15625571]

>>15625344
>You can only have eternal existence or nonexistence
As he was sitting there he said to the Blessed One: "Lord, 'Right view, right view,' it is said. To what extent is there right view?"

"By & large, Kaccayana, this world is supported by (takes as its object) a polarity, that of existence & non-existence. But when one sees the origination of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'non-existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one. When one sees the cessation of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one.

"By & large, Kaccayana, this world is in bondage to attachments, clingings (sustenances), & biases. But one such as this does not get involved with or cling to these attachments, clingings, fixations of awareness, biases, or obsessions; nor is he resolved on 'my self.' He has no uncertainty or doubt that just stress, when arising, is arising; stress, when passing away, is passing away. In this, his knowledge is independent of others. It's to this extent, Kaccayana, that there is right view.

"'Everything exists': That is one extreme. 'Everything doesn't exist': That is a second extreme. Avoiding these two extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma via the middle: From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications. From fabrications as a requisite condition comes consciousness. From consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-&-form. From name-&-form as a requisite condition come the six sense media. From the six sense media as a requisite condition comes contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging/sustenance. From clinging/sustenance as a requisite condition comes becoming. From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. From birth as a requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. Such is the origination of this entire mass of stress & suffering.

"Now from the remainderless fading & cessation of that very ignorance comes the cessation of fabrications. From the cessation of fabrications comes the cessation of consciousness. From the cessation of consciousness comes the cessation of name-&-form. From the cessation of name-&-form comes the cessation of the six sense media. From the cessation of the six sense media comes the cessation of contact. From the cessation of contact comes the cessation of feeling. From the cessation of feeling comes the cessation of craving. From the cessation of craving comes the cessation of clinging/sustenance. From the cessation of clinging/sustenance comes the cessation of becoming. From the cessation of becoming comes the cessation of birth. From the cessation of birth, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair all cease. Such is the cessation of this entire mass of stress & suffering."

[Anonymous No.15625576]

>>15621088
I just had a beautiful dream. Shiny buddha sucked my dick and swallowed.

[Anonymous No.15625577]

>>15625510
>Although Shankara is often considered to be the founder of the Advaita Vedanta school,
I rest my case

[Anonymous No.15625583]

>>15625571
buddha has awoken. anybody after reading your delirium will go to bed to sleep.

[Anonymous No.15625620]

>>15625577
>...according to Nakamura, comparison of the known teachings of these early Vedantins and Shankara's thought shows that most of the characteristics of Shankara's thought "were advocated by someone before Śankara".
>Shankara "was the person who synthesized the Advaita-vāda which had previously existed before him".
Bro, you have a mental deficit.

[Anonymous No.15625723]

>>15625571
That quote doesn't answer my question or provide an escape out of the paradox that you have boxed yourself into. If you don't know the answers it's okay to just say so, you shouldn't posture by posting quotes as if they resolve your quandary when they don't. In any case I wasn't talking about the extremes of existence and non-existence, I was asking whether the X which you yourself admits continues in Parinirvana is concious or non-concious, and then I examined the implications of the answers to those questions.

[Anonymous No.15625731]

>>15625489
If someone who has read it can't explain and resolve the contradiction I pointed out then there is no indication to me that it's worth reading

[Anonymous No.15625951]

when did hinduism go from "lets worship indra and sacrifice cows" to subtle,deep philosophy about the soul,the universe and the self?

[Anonymous No.15625977]

>>15625951
Hindus can't explain it, it 'just happened'

[Anonymous No.15625984]

>>15625571
Based

[Anonymous No.15625999]

>>15625951
Around the same time the Greeks went from "lets worship Zeus and sacrifice oxen" to subtle, deep philosophy about the soul, the universe and the self.

about five fidy

[Anonymous No.15626004]

>>15625951
When the first humans reached the required level of consciousness to discover such truths.