Quantcast
[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

/vt/ is now archived.Become a Patron!

/lit/ - Literature


View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 267 KB, 480x630, F1697390-0C0A-4B00-BCEC-78BB01A65B37.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
15944950 No.15944950 [Reply] [Original]

>is the conclusion to all theology and philosophy
nothin personell kid...

>> No.15944955

imagine how stinky he was after sitting there for so long

>> No.15944998
File: 843 KB, 1630x1328, 1595399798801.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
15944998

I would be careful about reading Advaita Vedanta interpretations such as Shankara's as a commentary to the Upanishads, they are extremely reliant on Buddhist philosophy (Shankara is called a "cryptobuddhist" by most Hindus, and most scholars agree). If you want to read the Upanishads, work through them with editions and commentaries that aren't sectarian, or at least read an interpretation that is closer to the original meaning of the Upanishads, rather than Shankara's 9th century AD quasi-buddhism.

>> No.15945316

>>15944998
>he doesn't know the Upanishads themselves teach Advaita, and the dualists schools were just copes created to keep bhakti relevant for the lower ascetics.

>> No.15945335

Eastern Spiritualism in the West is an affectation of the Bourgeoisie

>> No.15945387

>>15945316
lolno

>> No.15945612

>>15945335
False. Neoplatonism is the western version of Advaita basically

>> No.15946056
File: 251 KB, 640x640, 1595202818619.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
15946056

>>15945612
Not this shit again...

>> No.15946482

>>15945387
Nice argument bro

>> No.15946514

>>15946482
Upanishads aren't a homogeneous collection for one, they are very different between themselves.
Post sources of specific texts.

>> No.15946583

if you have trouble even imagine the co-existence of two antitheses, how can he be the conclusion when the truth is a Thrice Unknown Incoherence?.

>> No.15946632

>>15945316
Pretty much all actual Hindus would disagree. Hindus believe that Shankara's denying the personhood, multiplicity, and action of God, is outright atheism and nihilism. At least Buddhists say Shiva exists but not how Hindus think he does, Shankara just flat out denies that he exists period.

He's basically Pajeet Spinoza.

>> No.15946655

>>15946632
so its sort of like the "God" of neoplatonists, where it doesnt really do anything in a human sense, it just exists ergo other things exist?

>> No.15946658

>>15944950
yup, the only way is to be mindful and wise, you won't find ever any plausible conclusion, all you can do is find a way to get through whatever is going to come up and still exist.

>> No.15946672

>>15946655
Basically. Shankara takes the Buddhist conception of Emptiness, and says "but that means that God isn't real, so in order to live forever we have to have God, ergo Emptiness isn't Empty, therefore God". "God" is just "the thing that holds up the turtles". Only there is actually more to this, which Hindus ALSO deny as Shankara's philosophy allows in-this-life union with God, which is radically rejected by all Hindu scripture, doctrine, and belief.

Autists on 4chan make it seem like Shankara is somehow more popular than he is, but for most Hindus he's an incredibly minor heretical figure. The orthodox Shaivist stance is that he's an incarnation of Shiva making up a doctrine so blasphemous and stupid that it would shock Buddhists into adopting Hinduism out of embarrassment. Make of that what you will.

>> No.15946678

>>15946583
anon, God isn’t limited to “three”, and he’s not really even limited to “one” either. God is infinite in his nature and ontologically cannot be understood. The trinity is just another way for men to look upon and try and understand god. But once one understands that God is not understood, and just accepts that He is, He will always be, and just werks, they find freedom. Also, read Ecclesiastes.

>> No.15946680

>>15944950
Man people in this sub read everything from Plato and Aeschylus to Goethe and Nietzhe now Shankaracharya too? 4chan is really out of this world, IRL I can't find people who would even know about any of these people and here are people arguing about their doctrines.

>> No.15946730

>>15944950
i dunno, for long time i have meditated and was and still do practice conciouss observing of mind and its functions, and i could say that i have come to conclusion that there is never anything personal in any of nature and between people. It just makes my life a lot easier. Nothing personel kid...

>> No.15946756

>>15946672
Literally none of this is true

>> No.15946779

>>15944950
nope. read carlos castaneda.

>> No.15946788

>>15946632
>Pretty much all actual Hindus would disagree. Hindus believe that Shankara's denying the personhood, multiplicity, and action of God, is outright atheism and nihilism.
Do you have any source for that, or it's just what you fantasise the majority of Hindus believe?

>>15946514
From chapter IV of Brihadaranyaka Upanishad:

5. That self is indeed Brahman; it is also identified with the
intellect, the mind and the vital breath, with the eyes and ears,
with earth, water, air and akasa, with fire and with what is other
than fire, with desire and with absence of desire, with anger and
with absence of anger, with righteousness and unrighteousness,
with all—it is identified, as is well known, with this (i.e. what
is perceived) and with that (i.e. what is inferred).

13. Whoever has realized and intimately known the Self, Which
has entered this perilous and perplexing place (the body), is the
maker of the universe; for he is the maker of all. All is his Self
and he, again, is indeed the Self of all.

14. Dwelling in this very body, we have somehow realized
Brahman; otherwise we should have remained ignorant and
great destruction would have overtaken us. Those who know
Brahman become immortal, while others only suffer misery

15. When a person following the instructions of a teacher directly
beholds the effulgent Self, the Lord of all that has been and will
be, he no longer wishes to hide himself from It.

17. That in which the five groups of five and the akasa rest, that
very Atman I regard as the Immortal Brahman. Knowing that
Brahman, I am immortal.

>> No.15946791

>>15946730
It’s not something that is meant to be forced really anon. Brahman is not something that is meant to be understood, and trying to know him or reach some divine state in this life is like swimming against the currents of a river, or drowning yourself in it. Just go with the flow of everything and you’ll find a way eventually. For me it was realizing all this shit on acid, but it wasn’t even my first acid trip, and of course acid isn’t a miracle drug for everyone, but that’s just my experience on the matter

>> No.15946809

>>15946756
Yeah, the Buddha, born roughly 550~BC, was TOTALLY just copying what Shankara said in ~800AD. The Buddha was, after all, influenced by the Upanishads, written 200BC-100AD. The fact that Shankara never actually read any Buddhists texts does not at all impact his RETROACTIVE REFUTATION of Buddhism, not that he actually has to refute anything, becuase after all, the Buddha was just saying exactly what Shankara said.

Dumbfuck.

>> No.15946848

>>15944998
Isn’t the whole point of Shankara’s maya that the illusion is a part of Brahman/Atman too? Buddhists don’t believe in a soul. Shankara believe the consciousness is the soul, and creates Maya. The two are different.

>> No.15946855

>>15946809
See>>15946848
dumbass.

>> No.15946857

>>15946788
Shaivism, Vishnaivism, and Shaktism all reject Vedanta (or rather, reject the central claims of Shankara's in-this-life Moksha, as Vedanta does advance beyond Shankara). That makes up somewhere between 51% and 85%, using rough numbers from 2010. This is sort of fuzzy, as everything in Hinduism is, but the point is that it's greater than 49%, which is indeed "most".

If you want an introductory survey of what Hindus believe, you can get Gavin Flood's An Introduction to Hinduism on amazon for cheap.

>> No.15946869

>>15946809
>the Upanishads, written 200BC-100AD
There is no reason to embarass yourself like that on the internet

>> No.15946870

>>15946855
Yes, that's why Shankara is wrong. Because the Buddha, despite what Shankara claims, did not believe in a Self. That's the entire point of Buddhism. Shankara, when he says that the Buddha taught a doctrine in which there are Selfs, is wrong. That is exactly what that anon is saying.

I'm not sure why you made this post, given that it's just agreeing with me and then you calling yourself a dumbass.

>> No.15946885

>>15946869
>The later Upanishads, numbering about 95, also called minor Upanishads, are dated from the late 1st-millennium BCE to mid 2nd-millennium CE.[23] Gavin Flood dates many of the twenty Yoga Upanishads to be probably from the 100 BCE to 300 CE period.[24] Patrick Olivelle and other scholars date seven of the twenty Sannyasa Upanishads to likely have been complete sometime between the last centuries of the 1st-millennium BCE to 300 CE.[23] About half of the Sannyasa Upanishads were likely composed in 14th- to 15th-century CE.[23]
???

>> No.15946951

>>15946857
>Shaivism, Vishnaivism, and Shaktism all reject Vedanta
That's absolutely wrong, what you mean is that they reject Advaita Vedanta, which is also wrong. Only the Vishna sects are hard Vishishadvaitic, both Shaivism and Shaktism are heavily influenced by Advaita (not necessarily Shankara's ideas), which becomes self evident once you read their texts.

>> No.15946961

>>15946885
really anon? is that just low-effort bait-posting or something? It's a common posiiton among Indologists that the earliest Upanishads are pre-Buddhist

>Patrick Olivelle gives the following chronology for the early Upanishads, also called the Principal Upanishads:[52][21]

>The Brhadaranyaka and the Chandogya are the two earliest Upanishads. They are edited texts, some of whose sources are much older than others. The two texts are pre-Buddhist; they may be placed in the 7th to 6th centuries BCE, give or take a century or so.[53][22]
>The three other early prose Upanisads—Taittiriya, Aitareya, and Kausitaki come next; all are probably pre-Buddhist and can be assigned to the 6th to 5th centuries BCE.[citation needed]

>Stephen Phillips places the early Upanishads in the 800 to 300 BCE range. He summarizes the current Indological opinion to be that the Brhadaranyaka, Chandogya, Isha, Taittiriya, Aitareya, Kena, Katha, Mundaka, and Prasna Upanishads are all pre-Buddhist and pre-Jain, while Svetasvatara and Mandukya overlap with the earliest Buddhist and Jain literature.[18]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upanishads#Chronology

>> No.15946986

>>15946514
>Upanishads aren't a homogeneous collection for one, they are very different between themselves.
The Brahma Sutras reconcile the apparent differences between the primary Upanishads and show how they actually agree and consistently teach the same doctrine

>> No.15946994

>>15946885
The Brhadaranyaka and the Chandogya are the two earliest Upanishads. They are edited texts, some of whose sources are much older than others. The two texts are pre-Buddhist; they may be placed in the 7th to 6th centuries BCE, give or take a century or so.[53][22]
The three other early prose Upanisads—Taittiriya, Aitareya, and Kausitaki come next; all are probably pre-Buddhist and can be assigned to the 6th to 5th centuries BCE.[citation needed]
The Kena is the oldest of the verse Upanisads followed by probably the Katha, Isa, Svetasvatara, and Mundaka. All these Upanisads were composed probably in the last few centuries BCE.[54]
The two late prose Upanisads, the Prasna and the Mandukya, cannot be much older than the beginning of the common era.[52][21]

As you can see, the most influential Upanishads are found in texts dating either before or during the early centuries of Buddhism. Please note that these refer to their text forms, and nobody estimates how many years their ideas were circulated orally.

>> No.15947000

>>15946961
So then, what you're saying is, I am correct, that some of the Upanishads were written before the Buddha's time, and that some were written after his time, therefore it would be impossible for him to be influenced by these later Upanishads?

In which case, you agree with me that by simple chronology, the claim made by Vedantins that the Buddha was just reading directly from the Upanishads to get Shankara's philosophy is wrong, because Shankara draws on Upanishads written after the Buddha's death. This is, of course, saying nothing between the radical differences in karma, rebirth vs reincarnation, Self vs not-Self, etc between the two.

>> No.15947010

>>15946994
See >>15947000

>> No.15947022

>>15946870
>Shankara, when he says that the Buddha taught a doctrine in which there are Selfs, is wrong. That is exactly what that anon is saying.
Shankara never said that you fool, Shankara condemns Buddhism as stupid for teaching the doctrine of no-self in his writings. The idea that Buddha actually taught Advaita was only propagated by modern writers but Shankara never made the same claim and he treats Buddhism in his writings as being just another worthless heresy to refute like Jainism

>> No.15947032

>>15947022
>shankara said the buddha said x
>no, the buddha did not say x
>well, shankara didn't say he did, but the buddha said x
lmfao jesus christ get over yourself you fucking hipster

>> No.15947041

>>15946680
>in this sub
Go back

>> No.15947057

>>15947022
Then I am mistaken, Shankara himself does not make the claim, but rather the Vedantins do.

In which case, yes, you agree with me that the Vedantin claim that the Buddha was actually just plagiarizing Shankara is wrong, not only for the obvious chronological issues, but also for the obvious differences in their philosophies.

>> No.15947201

>>15945612
Neoplatonism is closer to Vishishtadvaita and the non-dualist Shaktist/Shaivite sects, although there are still many parallels between it and Advaita.

>> No.15947227

>>15947041
I will have to, because I can't understand shit here. I feel more comfortable in r/historymemes.

>> No.15947307

What think Shankara fags of U.G. Krishnamurti?

>> No.15947322
File: 24 KB, 1185x179, 1576633698318.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
15947322

Hindus are too stupid to understand this

>The Buddha said: “Monks, abandon what is not yours. Abandoning it will lead to benefit and happiness. Now, what is it that is not yours? Form is not yours; abandon it. Abandoning it will lead to benefit and happiness. Sensation, perception, volitional formations, and consciousness are not yours; abandon them. Abandoning them will lead to benefit and happiness.

“Here is an example: suppose someone were to cut down the grass, wood, branches, leaves, and foliage here in the Jeta forest, or were to take it away or burn it, or do whatever he wished with it. What do you think? Would you think, ‘That person is cutting us, or taking us away, or burning us, or doing whatever he wished with us’?”

The monks answered, “Of course not, Venerable Sir.”

“And why is that?”

“Because this forest, Venerable Sir, is not ourselves; nor does it belong to us.”

“In just the same way, abandon what is not yours. Abandoning it will lead to benefit and happiness. In just the same way, form is not yours; abandon it. Abandoning it will lead to benefit and happiness. Sensation, perception, volitional formations, and consciousness are not yours; abandon them. Abandoning them will lead to benefit and happiness.”


HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA

>> No.15947399
File: 231 KB, 1306x1326, 1573057888658.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
15947399

>>15947057
>In which case, yes, you agree with me that the Vedantin claim that the Buddha was actually just plagiarizing Shankara is wrong, not only for the obvious chronological issues, but also for the obvious differences in their philosophies.
I agree with this, although I think there are still some good indications that Buddha was taught and had his teachings be subsequently influenced by the early pre-Buddhist Upanishads; including some of the non-dualist concepts taught by them which Shankara naturally also wove into his theology of Advaita. Many of the key tenets of Buddhism can be found elaborated first centuries earlier in the Brihadaranyaka and Chandogya Upanishads, to say nothing of the other possibly pre-Buddhist ones.

This picture for example, discusses the relevant passages where one can find early versions of the Buddhist 4 noble truths, dependent arising, the eight-fold path and the three characteristics of existence in the pre-Buddhist Brihadaranyaka and Chandogya Upanishads and some older strata of the Vedas. The general ideas of reincarnation/transmigration, samsara, monasticism and karma also appeared first in the earliest Upanishads and then subsequently in Buddhism. To have all these concepts described in the early Upanishads and then for them to appear in Buddha's teachings by chance a few centuries later with some slight modification seems like an improbable coincidence.

Sometimes people as an objection to this say "well, these ideas were just a part of the general religious culture of ancient India and didn't necessarily have to come from the early Upanishads," but the thing is this is only conjecture and we don't actually have any other ancient texts besides the early Upanishads to point to as alternative sources for these ideas. This doesn't automatically mean that Buddha 'stole' or 'plagiarized' those ideas, when he was traveling around studying under different teachers, he might have listened someone who had memorized some of the Upanishads reciting them without necessarily explaining their whole Vedic background and context.

>> No.15947467
File: 2.86 MB, 2224x3425, plotinus.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
15947467

>imagine not being so intellectually overbearing that all philosophy on your side of the world after you has to concede to your philosophy
>imagine there still being oppositions yo your main tenets after your death
Plotinus single-handedly eradicated Stoicism, Peripateticism, Epicureanism, and warped Christian theology (Augustine, Cappadocians, Dionysius, Maximus the Confessor.)
All philosophy since Plotinus in the west has been 'Plotinian'.
Even Advaita likely emerged from contact with Greek scholars dialoguing with Indians (Platonists/Pythagoreans), I bet Greco-Buddhism was the parent of it.

>> No.15947484

>>15946672
>Only there is actually more to this, which Hindus ALSO deny as Shankara's philosophy allows in-this-life union with God, which is radically rejected by all Hindu scripture, doctrine, and belief.
From what I understand, liberation during mortal life is a common Hindu belief, although it isn't universally accepted.

>> No.15947505

>>15947467
>imagine there still being oppositions yo your main tenets after your death
Neoplatonism was literally wiped out by Christian authorities opposed to it, and there are many Christian theologians who opposed Neoplatonism and wrote condemnations of it and other pagan philosophies, despite some Christian thinkers being influenced by it.
>All philosophy since Plotinus in the west has been 'Plotinian'.
hilarious cope
>Even Advaita likely emerged from contact with Greek scholars dialoguing with Indians
The earliest Upanishads which talk repeatedly about non-duality (e.g. Brihadaranyaka and Chandgoya) date from the 8th-7th centuries BC, several centuries before Plato lived, it makes no sense to say that Advaita likely emerged from contact with Greek scholars when the Hindu scriptures talking about Advaitic teachings predate the existence of Greek philosophy

>> No.15947517

>>15946986
And there are many different interpretations of what the Brahma Sutras say, it doesn't resolve anything.

>> No.15947527

>>15944950
I mean I guess but am I able to question the desire for conclusions, I do not think so as I have been programmed to accept and repeat and do little more

>> No.15947532

>>15947517
>And there are many different interpretations of what the Brahma Sutras say,
and yet all of the commentators on it like Shankara, Ramanuja, Madhva, Vallabha, Vijnanabikshu etc despite their disagreements all agree that the Brahma Sutras reconcile the apparent differences between the primary Upanishads, and they all explain this in depth in their respective commentaries on it
>it doesn't resolve anything.
wrong

>> No.15947547

>>15947532
They all say it reconciles the Upanishads in different ways to each other. Obviously it doesn't resolve any differences of viewpoint if it's been interpreted to support many different viewpoints.

>> No.15947556
File: 222 KB, 480x619, veda-vyasa.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
15947556

>>15947322
>consciousness are not yours; abandon them
Who is supposed to abandon consciousness? Only a conscious and sentient being can intentionally abandon something, this results in the predicament that Buddha is asking people to abandon something which is their inherent nature, which is silly.

>> No.15947586

>>15947399
Or, alternatively, given the great divergence between the Upanishads and the Buddha's thought (his schema of suffering, karma, and rebirth, to say nothing of Not-Self all radically differ from the superficially similar ideas found in the Upanishads) are of his own generation (whether via Enlightenment or just because he was a kook that thought them up). To say that because the Upanishads discuss Karma, and the Buddha discusses Karma, that they must OBVIOUSLY be the same Karma (despite them certainly not being the same Karma) is simply laughable. You might as well just say that because the Buddha and the authors of the Upanishads spoke the same dialect continuum that they were clearly just all thinking the same thing.

In Buddhism, this is the difference between Dharma and Buddhism. Buddhism is obviously going to have similarities between other doctrines, if just by virtue of the fact that the languages used to convey Buddhism (and through it, Dharma) are obviously used by other doctrines for the same purpose. This is taken to its extremes with Zen thought, but even from the Buddha himself you have his extensive usage of the metaphor of the raft.

>> No.15947594

>>15947556
>Who is supposed to abandon consciousness?
Exactly. See: The Heart Sutra.

>> No.15947610
File: 1.17 MB, 4089x1186, parallels.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
15947610

>>15947505
>Neoplatonism was literally wiped out by Christian authorities opposed to it
Catholic and Orthodox ontology is Neoplatonism through and through, the Father is the Ineffable One, the Son and Spirit is the Dyad and Triad (terms literally used by Maximus and Damascene). Christ is also Being-Life-Intellect and cosmically operatively identical to Dionysus, Holy Spirit is alike Eros (as the One).

>> No.15947636

>>15947547
>They all say it reconciles the Upanishads in different ways to each other.
Only partially, in some areas they disagree but in others they mostly agree in the same manner that the Brahma Sutras reconcile the differences such as the long section near the beginning where it talks about various names like space etc being used symbolically to refer to Brahman, or about the order in which the elements are produced and other cosmological details.

In any case, that many people have cited and written about a scripture such as the Upanishads claiming to find different teachings elaborated in it does not in itself prove that the scripture in question actually teaches different things and is not consistent. It could simply be the case that one and possibly other a few nearly identical interpretations of it are correct and that the others are wrong.

>> No.15947654

>>15947594
It's a nonsensical paradox that shows a hole in Buddhism's metaphysics. Instead of treating it as some zen-like koan kernel of wisdom that points to some higher truth the right response is to realize that Buddhism's teachings are flawed.

>> No.15947694

>>15947654
The only flaw is your assumption that because you want certain things to be the way they are, that they must be. Of course stating the truth about the absence of a Self sounds nonsensical if you just plug your fingers in your ears and say
>no, Selfs are real, I don't need evidence or logical proof, I want to live forever so they must be

When the Buddha said "you can't find a Self", he meant that in several ways. Firstly, YOU, the anon reading this, have never found a Self. Secondly, YOU, the anon reading this, lack the ability to find a Self. Even if you could you literally cannot, because your very definition of it forbids you actually interacting with it in any manner, even if just to see it or smell it or even know that it exists.

If you want big meaty arguments and debates (you don't, you want to live forever because you're scared of death), read Nagarjuna, he explains why the argument you're making in >>15947556 is patently absurd.

>> No.15947704

>>15947694
that you want certain things to be OTHER THAN the way they are*
Excuse me.

>> No.15947705

>>15947586
>Buddha's thought (his schema of suffering, karma, and rebirth, to say nothing of Not-Self all radically differ from the superficially similar ideas found in the Upanishads)
Not-self is a big departure but the basic scheme of suffering and karma being linked to further rebirths is pretty similar to how the Upanishads present those things.
>to say that because the Upanishads discuss Karma, and the Buddha discusses Karma, that they must OBVIOUSLY be the same Karma is simply laughable.
Karma is just one of a dozen points of similarities, the picture discusses many others. The Upanishadic and Buddhist concept of karma don't have to be strictly identical for the latter to be influenced by the former.

>> No.15947721

>>15947705
Then we might as well say that all religions are REALLY ACTUALLY Vedanta because they were made by humans. Of course everything is similar if you just outright ignore the differences.

>> No.15947752

>>15947610
>Catholic and Orthodox ontology is Neoplatonism through and through,
Many of the Catholic and Orthodox posters here seem to disagree and I have seen them post and reference criticisms of Neoplatonism made by Christian theologians without any convincing responses being posted by anyone showing that it's *actually Neoplatonic*. They would all dispute your assertion strongly. In any case they still count as opposition to Neoplatonism since even when they appropriate some of its concepts most Christian philosophers/theologians still maintain that Platonism was flawed and incomplete and that Christianity is the complete truth and Platonism merely shares in a few of the same pre-existing truths that were eternally already the truth of Christianity.

>> No.15947756

>>15947654
its not a koan dude, hes literally pointing out why you are wrong. you hold to a view that says that things should happen a certain way, and and it turns out that they dont. upon inspection, you come to a paradox. the paradox is resolved by seeing that you are wrong, and that the confusion is happening because you hold to views that dont match up with reality.

>> No.15947774

>>15947721
okay if you just want to wildly misconstrue my point and ignore the detailed picture with citations that's your choice, but the point remains true that a lot of the things taught by Buddha about desire, suffering, attachment, rebirth, virtuousness, monasticism etc are repeating what the Upanishads said centuries earlier

>> No.15947815

>>15947774
No, they are not. I explained why. Just because the Buddha is using a pre-existing language to convey his ideas instead of making up his own does not mean that he is somehow copying these ideas. No shit the Buddha and the Upanishads both use the term "karma", it means fucking "actions". What that actually MEANS, what the idea is ABOUT, not just the arbitrary signifier (the Doctrine of Karma could have been the Doctrine of Faggot, it's totally arbitrary) but something else, and that something else differs between the two.

The Buddha's ideas differ radically from those of the Upanishads (chiefly, because of Not-Self, which ends up coloring all of them because let's face it that is the core idea of Buddhism). This is a simple fact. Not-Self alone is a demonstration of that. I genuinely don't know how to make this any simpler than to just say "The Buddha was not plagiarizing Shankara", dude.

Go read a fucking book.

>> No.15947877

>>15947694
>that because you want certain things to be the way they are, that they must be.
I never said that I want things to be a certain way
>Of course stating the truth about the absence of a Self sounds nonsensical if you just plug your fingers in your ears and say
I didn't say anything about the 'Self' in that post, I just made the point that only a conscious being can make the decision to abandon anything (can a rock abandon something?), but that due to its very nature as a conscious being it's impossible for that being to abandon consciousness, just as a fire cannot abandon being hot. If you want to dispute this point please actually formulate a cogent response instead of going off on a tangent that doesn't address my point about conscious beings not being able to abandon their inherent nature as conscious beings.
>Firstly, YOU, the anon reading this, have never found a Self.
Yes I have, the Self is the sentience, intelligence or awareness in which my experience of things takes place
>Secondly, YOU, the anon reading this, lack the ability to find a Self.
false, I just did so above.
>Even if you could you literally cannot, because your very definition of it forbids you actually interacting with it in any manner, even if just to see it or smell it or even know that it exists.
That's not true, one can intuitively sense and abide as the awareness in which experience takes place without necessarily seeing or smelling that awareness
>If you want big meaty arguments and debates (you don't, you want to live forever because you're scared of death), read Nagarjuna, he explains why the argument you're making is patently absurd
I find Nagarjuna's ideas to be absurd and I have no desire to waste my time by reading him, but if you believe he is right then you should be able to use his reasoning to explain how what I'm saying is wrong.
>>15947756
>its not a koan dude, hes literally pointing out why you are wrong
Saying "read the Heart Sutra" is not pointing out how what I said was wrong
>you hold to a view that says that things should happen a certain way, and and it turns out that they dont.
Hold up, when and where was it shown that conscious beings can abandon their very nature as conscious beings? I still consider this to be an unsubstantiated and foolish assertion
>upon inspection, you come to a paradox. the paradox is resolved by seeing that you are wrong, and that the confusion is happening because you hold to views that dont match up with reality.
The idea that I am espousing that conscious beings by default as conscious beings have consciousness as their very nature which cannot be abandoned is just basic logic, the paradoxical and nonsensical nature of the claim taught by Buddhism that they can abandon this is an indication that the Buddhist claim is wrong

>> No.15947890

>it's a "casteless westerners think of Hindus as one monolithic religion" episode

>> No.15947899

>>15947877
I insist, what do you think of U.G. Krishnamurti? Many of your points (or Shankara points, if you are simply reflecting them) have a strong resemblance with what he says.

>> No.15947912

>>15947752
Because most orthodox do not realize a deep flaw in their theology.
If you would, pretty please, define what 'a person' is.

>> No.15947918

>>15947815
>No, they are not. I explained why.
No you didn't, you are trying to shift the goal posts by making it into a dispute about the word karma and its different meanings and then wrongly acting like that by showing that they use karma differently the whole problem has been addressed, but again as I already mentioned this is only a small part of the issue, which includes that one can also find other Buddhist concepts like the noble truths and the three marks of existence in the earlier Upanishads, and that Buddha preached the same scheme that the Upanishads first did about abandoning desire and attachment and becoming a monk to end rebirth and reach a sorrowless state.

>> No.15947939

>>15947877
>Yes I have, the Self is the sentience, intelligence or awareness in which my experience of things takes place
It's pretty clear that you don't actually know what you're talking about here. Nagarjuna elaborates why, but the tl;dr is that no, that is not a Self, the sentience, intelligence, and awareness are all composite changing non-eternal things, ergo they cannot be a Self. The very fact that you've listed three separate things here is evidence that it's not a Self (if it were a Self it couldn't be three things, it would just be one thing). That's not to say that sentience, intelligence, awareness, or even consciousness, are not real, but rather that they are not Selfs. If the problem is that you do not know what a Self is, I can elaborate (and explain why you can't find one).

I explained the basics of Nagarjuna's reasoning, see >>15947694. It's really that simple. If you want more, read him. If not, then that's your loss, and you will continue to suffer and be unhappy (and will end up ditching Hinduism when you have your next crisis of faith) because you are wrong. For that reason, I do implore you to at least consider the opinions of others, because you will be better off if you do.

>> No.15947958

>>15947877
given that you have no idea what you are talking about ("awareness is a Self" lmfao dude come on) i would say that yeah, "read scripture to understand this topic that you dont understand" would actually be very good advice.

what the buddha taught is a good starter book imo

>> No.15947977

>>15947899
Yes, what I am saying is mostly representing Shankara's perspective, I have not read any of U.G. Krishnamurti's books, but have only seen quotations from him posted here on /lit/. I don't really know what to make of him and would probably read one of his books at some point out of curiosity. I disagree from the outset with his sentiments about enlightenment, God, spirituality and the soul etc being nonsense although just from what little I know about him I can still see some similarities insofar as both him and Advaita seem to posit that in our essential nature we are already fulfilled and complete and that we simply have to realize this and stop fixating on exterior things and concepts which obscure our inherent nature from us.

>> No.15948192

>>15947939
>Nagarjuna elaborates why, but the tl;dr is that no, that is not a Self, the sentience, intelligence, and awareness are all composite changing non-eternal things
False, awareness never changes, only the objects of that awareness (i.e. the things which manifest themselves to awareness) changes. Awareness is also not composite but is homogenous, you don't have multiple awareness or an awareness with different parts, you only have one undivided locus of awareness. This is why you cannot think 5 different thoughts simultaneously or why when you are deeply engrossed in thought you sometimes cannot notice objects suddenly appearing in front of you, it is because you only have one non-composite and undivided awareness which while remaining unchanged allows a series of thoughts and sensory data to manifest themselves to it and be witnessed by it in succession. There is no proof which can be held up to prove that awareness is eternal or non-eternal, so it's totally pointless to assert this as a point against me, we don't know where our awareness was or if it existed before our life in this body, and the same goes for that awareness after death. The people who say that awareness is eternal and those who say it is non-eternal are on equal footing.
>ergo they cannot be a Self.
Yes, it can, because as I explained above your reasoning was fallacious
>The very fact that you've listed three separate things here is evidence that it's not a Self (if it were a Self it couldn't be three things, it would just be one thing).
I am obviously using them as different words for referring to the same thing, don't play dumb. Intelligent beings by default have and are defined by their sentience, which is inseparable from awareness/consciousness.
>That's not to say that sentience, intelligence, awareness, or even consciousness, are not real, but rather that they are not Selfs.
They refer to the same luminous Self.
>I explained the basics of Nagarjuna's reasoning, see...
And I already explained why that was wrong, you still haven't provided an explanation for the problem of how a conscious being can abandon its very nature as a conscious being which is the whole reason we are even having this discussion. Please provide an answer to this instead of continuing to dodge it.

>>15947958
>given that you have no idea what you are talking about ("awareness is a Self" lmfao dude come on)
Why would the awareness not be the Self? What is a better explanation for the Self? Awareness illuminates all inner and outer phenomena which present themselves to it, it is the basis of all conscious experience. To say that there is a self which is different from awareness is to presuppose that there is another center to the conscious being to which awareness/consciousness is an exterior phenomena, but there is nothing more innermost and essential than awareness. One's awareness is not illuminated or witnessed by anything else.

>> No.15948355
File: 304 KB, 1894x748, nihilist.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
15948355

>>15947939
>If you want more, read him. If not, then that's your loss, and you will continue to suffer and be unhappy (and will end up ditching Hinduism when you have your next crisis of faith) because you are wrong. For that reason, I do implore you to at least consider the opinions of others, because you will be better off if you do.
It's funny that you say this when one of the more active Buddhist-posters on /lit/ has posted multiple threads about how studying Buddhism and what it says about consciousness being conditioned has made him want to kill himself out of despair. It's almost like accepting teachings which coincidentally happen to align 90%+ with physicalism don't actually make you happy and fulfilled.

>> No.15948460

>>15947977
"Mind is a myth", and "Mystique of enlightenment" are his main ones, I believe.

>> No.15948489

>>15948355
>Rene Guenon opened my eyes
>the Buddha, Heraclitus, Whitehead
>Munchhausen trilemma
You're literally falling for a meme, dude. The only way you could be getting memed on harder was if he was about to kill himself because Pynchon showed him that he couldn't stop subvocalizing.

>>15948192
Are you aware when you're sleeping? If not, how can it be that awareness doesn't change? If it doesn't change, then it's not a Self. Can you ever be unaware of something? If so, then awareness can change, in which case it's not a Self, as it can change. Can awareness be broken apart? If so, then it's not a Self, as it's made of other things, and can thus change. If awareness cannot change, then how can it at all interact with the physical world, as if it cannot change, it cannot interact?

That is the answer. You're assuming that you have some unchanging eternal discrete non-composite Self. You don't. When the Buddha says "don't be attached to consciousness" (I would agree that "abandon" is a poor translation of what the Buddha is getting at in anon's post, because what he's telling the monks is to lose the attachment to the consciousness, not to lose the consciousness), you're getting upset because you feel like he's asking you to unattach yourself from the Real You, but that's not the case at all. You think there's a tiny man piloting your body inside your head, and are getting upset when you think that the Buddha is telling you to ditch the tiny man, but the simply truth is that there is no tiny man.

>> No.15948504

Honest question, how can little words on paper have any relation to the divine?

>> No.15948548
File: 102 KB, 837x1194, zen monk, Kodo Sawaki.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
15948548

>>15948504
Exactly.

>> No.15948563
File: 75 KB, 850x400, stars.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
15948563

>>15948504
They are reflecting what is above.

>> No.15948617

>>15948504
Because Consciousness is divine and all little words on paper are mere objects of Consciousness

>> No.15948673

>>15948504
same as article on The Beatles on wikipedia to real music, you still remain "deaf" until you hear it.

>> No.15948766
File: 1014 KB, 783x1161, damas.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
15948766

>>15948504
abductive logic

>> No.15948806

>>15944950
Do pagans really?

>> No.15948846

>>15948806
We really be do

>> No.15949117

>>15948489
>Are you aware when you're sleeping?
This is already explained in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad and Mandukya Karika, dreamless sleep is just the Self withdrawing the subtle body (i.e. the functioning of the organs and mind) back into itself. The Self is ever aware, and you and me as the Self are always aware but in deep sleep there is no duality perceived and the Self simply continues as contentless awareness. That there is no memory of this upon waking is because the mind and its function of memory is withdrawn into the Self during deep sleep. To perceive the mind and memories is a duality of subject and object but there are no dualities remaining in deep sleep because they are withdrawn.

Brihadaranyaka 2.1.17. - Ajatasatru said: When this being full of consciousness (vijnana maya) is thus asleep, it absorbs, at that time, the functions of the organs through its own consciousness and rests in the Supreme Self that is in the heart. When this being absorbs them, it is called svapiti. Then the organ of smell is absorbed, the organ of speech is absorbed, the eye is absorbed, the ear is absorbed and the mind is absorbed.
Brihadaranyaka 4.3.11. - Regarding this there are the following verses: ‘The effulgent infinite being, who travels alone, makes the body insensible in sleep but himself remains awake and taking with him the luminous particles of the organs, watches those which lie dormant. Again he comes to the waking state'
Brihadaranyaka 4.3.23.-4.3.24. - "And when it appears that in deep sleep it does not see, yet it is seeing though it does not see; for there is no cessation of the vision of the seer, because the seer is imperishable. There is then, however, no second thing separate from the seer that it could see. "And when it appears that in deep sleep it does not smell, yet it is smelling though it does not smell; for there is no cessation of the smelling of the smeller, because the smeller is imperishable. There is then, however, no second thing separate from the smeller that it could smell.

>> No.15949129

>>15949117
However, this contentless awareness which we normally experience in dreamless sleep is not the same as the Supreme Self as it is in its eternally free nature because waking (Visva), dream (Taijasa), and dreamless deep sleep (Prajna) are only states superimposed on the Self which is free from them as the transcendental fourth state (Turiya) which is the cause of the other three. Someone who has not attained illumination abides as a jiva in the state of Prajna in deep sleep which causes the perception when they awake that their awareness has changed or vanished during sleep, whereas the illuminated person understands and experiences that they are the unchanging awareness of the 4th state which witnesses the other three. Our real nature is the fourth ever awake and liberated Turiya, but under the influence of maya the jiva falsely perceives itself as the 3rd state of Prajna.
>If not, how can it be that awareness doesn't change?
The unchanging awareness in which everything else appears never changes, in dreamless sleep there is only an absence of objects to illuminate, but this change takes place in the objects of awareness and not awareness itself. When people interrupt a sleeping person by striking them it immediately intrudes from the outside upon the awareness which is already abiding there without any objects to illuminate and is experienced as a manifestation of something to that continuum of awareness which preceded it.
>If it doesn't change, then it's not a Self.
What do you mean? I hold that the Self is unchanging, so if it doesn't change than yes it indeed can be the Self.

>> No.15949131

>>15949129
>Can you ever be unaware of something? If so, then awareness can change, in which case it's not a Self, as it can change.
You are confusing awareness for the objects of awareness. Awareness doesn't change, only the series of objects which manifest themselves to it change. You can be unaware of certain objects of awareness, but that's only a change in the exterior and separate things which awareness illuminates. It's literally impossible to show that awareness is changing, because any single one thing which one could point to as a sign that awareness is changing is itself observed as an object by that very awareness which is the topic of discussion, and hence it fails to provide any information about it, because what you are actually talking about is a mental concept conjured up by the thinking mind that is observed by awareness and not pure awareness itself. Nagarjuna in Mūlamadhyamakakārikā verse 3.2 makes the point that reflexive actions such as the eye seeing itself are not tenable, so if this reasoning were used consistently then awareness would not have the ability to reflexively observe itself as its own object and observe its own changing or conditioned nature and all your arguments would be in vain, but your logic is not consistent so you act like reflexive actions are legitimate when it suits your arguments.
>Can awareness be broken apart? If so, then it's not a Self
No awareness cannot be broken apart
>If awareness cannot change, then how can it at all interact with the physical world, as if it cannot change, it cannot interact?
Awareness doesn't actually have any interaction with a separately existing physical world, the world is an illusory manifestation of Brahman's power which Brahman causes to appear in and be witnessed by unchanging consciousness. The status of being a doer and something which interacts with other things are superimposed upon the Self but they don't actually inhere in It as Its characteristics. Hence there is no problem.
>That is the answer. You're assuming that you have some unchanging eternal discrete non-composite Self. You don't.
I just explained above why we do have an unchanging, eternal and non-composite Self. The Self is not discrete but is supra-individual
>When the Buddha says "don't be attached to consciousness" (I would agree that "abandon" is a poor translation of what the Buddha is getting at in anon's post, because what he's telling the monks is to lose the attachment to the consciousness, not to lose the consciousness)
Okay then, that has a greatly different meaning, some people were implying otherwise.

>> No.15949145
File: 146 KB, 640x640, 1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
15949145

>>15946869
>>15946885
>>15946961

I'm not really in the mood to argue with Guenonfagot in his own thread (it is commendable that this time he does not shitpost in others. Apparently did not find a suitable one), but maybe someanon wants to play. This is roughly what it can be, use:

Look: he fiercely dates the oldest Upanishads in the 800-300 BC range.
This spread is explained by the fact that all the events of ancient Indian history are not dated. The first date that can be accurately dated is the Edicts of Ashoka: about 250 BC, dated by reference to the Hellenistic rulers. And in them, attention: it is said about Buddhism that there were already sutras.(I’m even ready to agree that Buddhism is much younger and Shakyamuni, most likely, lived around the beginning to the middle of the 4th century BC, and not in the middle of the 6th.)

I did not find exact information about the first manuscripts of the Upanishads, but as far as I remember it is about 12-14 centuries AD, maybe the OP will say more precisely. (Everything rots very quickly in India.)
Shakyamuni does not refer to any texts of the Upanishads, does not argue, does not comment, does not quote. That is, the early sutras of Buddhism do not know about the Upanishads.

So the facts:
1. Buddhism existed in India around 250 BC
2. The Upanishadic texts were recorded in the Middle Ages, after 12th AD.

[to be continued...]

>> No.15949193

goys, understand this, more letters you write more far away from buddha, from inner child you are.

>> No.15949208

[continuation]

>>15949145
Interpretations:
1. Guenonfagot: The Upanishads appeared after the Vedas, but at least the oldest before the Buddha. Buddha (intentionally and villainously(?) ) ignored their existence, but actively stole their ideas, probably considering his disciples, many of whom were from brahmana families, as idiots. The Hindus were so uninterested in writing down the texts that the first recordings were made only in the Middle Ages.

2. Buddhist (moderate): The Upanishads as texts were not compiled during the time of Shakyamuni. But separate sayings and many ideas circulated among some of the brahmanas and sramanas. Under the influence of the growth of Shramana schools (Buddhists, Jains, Ajiviks and others), which had their own (first oral, then written canon), the Brahmans moved from purely ritual activities to compiling their own "canon", as a result of which between 200 BC and 200 AD the oral texts of the Upanishads were created. The lack of a centralized structure led to the fact that the writing of texts was neglected and the oldest manuscripts survived only from the 12th century.

3. Buddhist (hard mode): The Upanishads, along with their commentaries, were written in the 12-14th century AD. during Muslim rule. To give credibility and significance, the time of their creation was declared "immemorial antiquity.". Ideas were stolen from Buddhists and Jains. Brahmanism did not have its own philosophy at all, it is a purely ritualistic religion, all philosophical teachings were borrowed during the times of decline - the impossibility of making massive sacrifices during the rule of Muslims. The bulk of Western Indologists turned to the Brahmans for comments and and they consciously and unconsciously convinced them of incredible antiquity (OVER 9000 BC !!!!!) of their religion, although Hinduism is at best 1500 years old.

I personally adhere to: 2.

In fact, you can criticize the entire dating of Hinduism, with the due will. The Hindus were almost uninterested in history, so everything that can be dated there is dated through Buddhists, Jains, Chinese pilgrims, etc. So the whole story there can be smashed to smithereens.

P.S. I am actually good with different Hindus. It's just that a student of French Muslim is a little annoying.

>> No.15949243

But did he understand the metaphysics of the toilet?

>> No.15949350

>>15949145
>Look: he fiercely dates the oldest Upanishads in the 800-300 BC range.
as do almost all expert scholars, Indologists, linguists etc, the people who disagree tending to be amateur armchair-experts posting in forums online

>> No.15949403

>>15949193
>t. christcuck

>> No.15949439

>>15944950
>Life is suffering
>Most people across all cultures tend to be happy
How can anyone be a Buddhist?

>> No.15949454

>>15949350
"That's just like, your opinion, man"

Answer one simple question:
which manuscript of the Upanishads is dated between 800 and 300 BC? Thank you in advance.

Until then: it's just guesswork.
And I don't give a fuck how common they are.
Just the facts, bro.

>> No.15949490

>>15949208
Interesting, 2 sounds most plausible. Even Olivelle, the only book guenonspammer has actually read on the Upanishads, says that only the Chandogya is very old. So even if some Upanishads are pre-buddhist it is likely one or two of them at most.

But remember that they continued to be edited for centuries and did not reach their final form until much later. For example the book of Isaiah is probably from the 8th century but we recently found versions of it from 400bc that are different from the one we have, because editions continued to be made for hundreds of years. The oldest Upanishads may have a core that was massaged to accommodate Buddhist and Jain srmana ideas down to 400ad.

Also the cultural complexes that produced the srmana and veda traditions are very different. The kuru-pancala kingdom was possibly being influenced by eastern proto buddhist ideas centuries before Buddha and Buddhism. The preceding vedic culture is totally ritualistic so it's likely.

Smart people can consider all possibilities. Only guenonspammer wants to defend a ridiculous all or nothing approach.

>> No.15949541

>>15949439
Happiness is suffering

>> No.15949585

>>15949490
>But remember that they continued to be edited for centuries and did not reach their final form until much later.
And this may mean that the "final form" was reached by, say, 5-6 centuries AD.
>For example the book of Isaiah is probably from the 8th century but we recently found versions of it from 400bc that are different from the one we have, because editions continued to be made for hundreds of years.
Link? And I'm interested in the history of Israel, I love the type of Finkelstein's "The Bible Unearthed" .
>The kuru-pancala kingdom was possibly being influenced by eastern proto buddhist ideas centuries before Buddha and Buddhism. The preceding vedic culture is totally ritualistic so it's likely.
Yes, I think so too.
I think Ancient India was much less "Vedic" than the brahmanas say. It's just that they were in charge of "collective memory" so their version of the story survived.
Approximately like the Jews, if you understand what I mean. Winners write history.
>Smart people can consider all possibilities. Only guenonspammer wants to defend a ridiculous all or nothing approach.
Smart people have a lot to talk about, even if they totally disagree.
Be a French-Muslim's student: post the same memes day after day.

>> No.15949600

>>15949439
A better translation is "dukkha is". Dukkha is the bad feelings from impermanence. Suffering, like getting tortured, is part of this, but feeling sad on Sunday because tomorrow is Monday is also part of this. "Suffering is a part of life" is also more apt. "Life is suffering (among other things)" is a poor translation, I agree.

>>15949117
>>15949129
>>15949131
I could spend an hour writing up a big response, my copy of the MMK besides me, chuckling with with as I REFUTE you line by line, blah blah blah, but I'm just going to simplify this: Nagarjuna discusses exactly what you're talking about, and when it comes down to it I'll just be quoting him. Read the MMK, because if I'm just going to be quoting from it then you might as well save yourself the trouble and just go right to the source. If you BTFO him, write up a blogpost and link here on /lit/, and I'll write up a blogpost and link it back, and we can have at it then. But there is frankly zero point in writing out huge essays arguing over minutiae on 4chan, there just aren't enough characters and the thread will die if one of us stops to actually think out an argument instead of spitting something out.

As to the point about abandoning, the Buddha's point is that the clinging causes the unhappiness (and the karma). The point is that because Consciousness (and a few things) are not the Self, that they are just composite parts of a larger whole. That's not to say that consciousness isn't good, or useful, but rather that the clinging causes suffering (this also applies to, say, form, wherein if form is bad, how do you even get rid of it?). The point isn't to lose it, it's to let go (of your attachment to) it.

>>15949490
>>15949208
They could have been transmitted orally. I don't know enough about the minutiae of this dating, but we do know that large amounts of text can be retained via oral tradition, so one could argue "well they weren't WRITTEN until X but they were transmitted orally". Of course, that just leads into "well how do you prove that they were doing that at Y time?", but that's a little different.

>> No.15949609

>>15949600
Ahh, so suffering isn't a direct translation? That makes more sense.

>> No.15949664

>>15949609
The Four Noble Truths are
>idam dukkham
lit. "This is dukkha"
>ayam dukkha-samudayo
lit. "This is the cause of dukkha"
>ayam dukkha-nirodha
lit. "This is the stopping of dukkha"
>ayam dukkha-nirodha-gamini patipada
lit. "This is the path to the stopping of dukkha"

More aptly,
>Dukkha is, Dukkha has a cause, you can stop it, here's how

Dukkha, as said, is the unpleasantness caused by impermanence. All conditioned beings (even Gods and demonds) are subject to dukkha. This (in my opinion, mis)translation of Dukkha as just flat out suffering, which in English has connotations of torture, alongside Schopenhauer's interpretation of Buddhism and a misunderstanding of Nietzsche's understanding of Buddhism (wherein Buddhism, as with basically everything in Nietzsche's works, is basically a strawman with no real relation to the actual Buddhism as practiced by Buddhists or taught by the Buddha, or really anything outside of Nietzsche's head) is part of what leads to this idea of Buddhism as this weird nihilistic atheist suicide cult where you just sit under a tree and starve to death (a critique that can be more aptly levied against Jainism, where yes that is literally the end goal).

There's other arguments for Buddhism being nihilism, which I would also disagree with, but those are more fine grained than just "it's a suicide cult".

>> No.15949674

>>15949600
>They could have been transmitted orally.
The Talmudic Judaists say about the same now: Yahweh gave Moses on Mount Sinai not only the written Torah, but also the oral Torah. And he said: you just do not write anything about oral, it will be like our secret.

Cool story bro!

There are two more differences between: "some texts were transmitted orally" (actually Buddhists also did this for about 300 years) and "Upanishads in the exact form in which they were written existed in the time of Shakyamuni, but only orally."

>> No.15949695

>>15949664
Ok, thank you for clarifying.

>> No.15949789

>>15949600
>I could spend an hour writing up a big response, my copy of the MMK besides me, chuckling with with as I REFUTE you line by line, blah blah blah, but I'm just going to simplify this: Nagarjuna discusses exactly what you're talking about, and when it comes down to it I'll just be quoting him. Read the MMK, because if I'm just going to be quoting from it then you might as well save yourself the trouble and just go right to the source.
this is just posturing in an attempt to save yourself from looking bad after I pointed out that your logic is inconsistent

>> No.15949828

>>15949789
If you're so scared that Nagarjuna is right and that he'll just take a dump on you and RETROACTIVELY REFUTE YOU, then you don't actually believe in any of this Vedanta crap anyways, so there is zero point in arguing with you.

Go read a book.

>> No.15949862

>>15949789
as an outside observer i can guarantee that no one is going to read three posts of schizobabble full of schizobabble made by someone who is such a hipster that they chose fucking advaita vedanta because buddhism was "too mainstream".

you're on 4chan, dude. take your head out of your ass.

>> No.15950026

>>15949789

we're on 4CHAN dude, don't you get it, this is 4 C H A N

4 C H A N

le

>> No.15950158

How the fuck is everyone here so well-educated? I really need to read more

>> No.15950184

>>15949828
>nagarjuna refutes your arguments i swear! quote them? n-no... just read him! REFUTED
Absolutely cringe. If you're such an expert on Nagarjuna as you claim then you should be able to quote him and actually present the arguments.

>> No.15950211

>>15949828
>If you're so scared that Nagarjuna is right
Why would I be scared when there are multiple published books and articles which deconstruct Nagarjuna's logic and show that it's fallacious and relies on common sophist tactics? I have read enough about him and all the nonsensical holes in his philosophy that I have no reason whatsoever to read him, I'd rather read things which I find to be interesting. You certainly haven't made me want to read him more by shrinking away and whining 'j-j-just read Nagarjuna you'll see he r-refuted you..." after I pointed out the contradiction in your logic.

>> No.15950222

ITT: the virgin buddhism vs the chad advaita vedanta.

>> No.15950347

>>15950222
Guenonfagot continues to crush us with the divine power of its argumentation.


There is nothing more to see here.
I'm going to bed, then.

>> No.15950504

>>15949585
>I think Ancient India was much less "Vedic" than the brahmanas say. It's just that they were in charge of "collective memory" so their version of the story survived.

This is true, that is how the brahmans operated. That is the common accusation against Shankara too, I will post the other pic after this. But the classic idea is that when the brahman priestly caste is threatened by something that would be dangerous to it, either by being directly hostile to it or just not caring about maintaining its status, it absorbs the new thing and claims it was always what the vedas and the brahmans meant from the beginning.

This isn't even the Buddhist line against Shankara, it's other vedic writers saying it against Shankara. Right away vedantists accused Shankara of "beating buddhism" by becoming buddhist, by turning the vedas into buddhism. Bhaskara accused Shankara of this immediately, and Ramanuja soon after (both Bhaskara's and Ramanuja's vedanta are far more in accordance with the Upanishads than Shankara's).

>Be a French-Muslim's student: post the same memes day after day.
This has always been the main problem with the guenonspammer, he simply doesn't like his favorite ideas being criticized so he responds with shitty memes and gets cunty and mean spirited. As if the purpose of discussing ancient philosophy is to "win" brownie points for your "side" by posting "NAGARJUNA BTFO, CHAD ADVAITA VEDANTA BASED" until people just get sick and leave.

Unfortunately there is lots of built-up distrust of him and advaitaposters here so he will have to tolerate people having short patience with him if he wants to discuss. The only way to fix that is to slowly gain people's trust back.

>> No.15950515
File: 275 KB, 1138x604, 1573655102805.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
15950515

>>15950504
Forgot to post picture.

>> No.15950531
File: 2.21 MB, 1450x5947, 1589053944498.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
15950531

>>15950515
This is the other one.

>intentional misinterpretation by Sankara to give the text an Advaitic character
>absorption of Buddhism into Vedanta
>incorporating foreign elements
>made the Vedantic tradition Buddhistic
>buddhification of the Vedanta

The brahmans don't care if you are an original vedic pantheist or a buddhistic advaita, as long as you don't disrupt the brahman caste lol.

>> No.15950543

Isn't the "point" of Hinduism to explore different schools of thought, learning new forms of practice, etc. for the sake of developing yourself spiritually? It's not like Shankara aimed to make all the other schools obsolete, no?

>> No.15950560

reminder that Buddha was just an incarnation of the old trickster Krishna meant for trolling atheist cucks into the ultimate cuck philosophy by making them take their atheism to the point of absurdity with not believing in their own individual self

>> No.15950590
File: 8 KB, 150x258, 150px-Ahimsa.svg.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
15950590

*blocks your path*

>> No.15950617
File: 3.88 MB, 480x198, bruh man.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
15950617

>>15950590

>> No.15950627
File: 61 KB, 569x681, Plotinos.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
15950627

Seeing how Buddhism vs Advaita always comes to a draw where should we go from here?

Could it be that the Neoplatonists refuted both of them? Or is Heidegger our man?

>> No.15950637

>>15950590
>blocking someones path instead of starving yourself to death
Not gonna make it. Violence is never the answer.

>> No.15950652

>>15950627
They're all based on unprovable undisprovable assumptions.

>> No.15950674
File: 103 KB, 624x434, 1497634198765.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
15950674

>>15950652
Ultimately so is all knowledge. Will you fight or perish like a dog?

>> No.15950678

>>15950652
Thoth Himself started the Egyptian mysteries, which initiated Platon (pbuh), whose school had a lineage leading to Plotinus (pbuh). So it's verified by having ties to the master of knowledge Himself.

>> No.15950682

>>15950627

>Hurr durr is this team better than this team?

Why do you faggots treat philosophy like it's the super bowl?

>> No.15950706

>>15950682
>a fucking individualist

>> No.15950723
File: 53 KB, 598x771, the golden chain.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
15950723

>>15950627
>Could it be that the Neoplatonists refuted both of them?
Yes.
>But why, if [the true universe] is indeed a whole everywhere, does not everything participate in it as a whole? And in what way is there a primary thing in the intelligible world and then a secondary thing and all the others that come after that? In fact, one should believe that that which is present is present because of the fitness of the recipient, and Being is everywhere in Being, without leaving itself behind; what can be present to it, is present. It is present as far as it can be, but not in place, in the way the transparent is present to light, whereas the participation for turbid stuff is otherwise. Moreover, the primary, secondary, and tertiary things are determined by rank, power, and differentiae, not by their places, for nothing prevents different things from being all together, such as soul and intellect and all sciences, both the major and the derived ones. For the eye sees the colour, and the nose smells the scent, and the other senses sense their different objects that all come from the identical thing, although they are all together, and not separate from each other. Does this, then, make the intelligible world variegated and multiple? In fact, the variegated is simple, too, and the many are one, for an expressed principle is one and many, and all being is one. For that which is different is in it itself, and Difference belongs to it, since it certainly could not belong to non-being. And being belongs to unity, which is not separated from being, and wherever being may be, its unity is present to it, and the One-Being is again in itself, FOR IT IS POSSIBLE TO BE PRESENT WHILE BEING SEPERATE.

>> No.15950734
File: 44 KB, 800x450, 1592944217142.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
15950734

>>15950652
>>15950674
Yes, will you abandon the external world and yourself to stay true to only believe in the provable?

>> No.15950846
File: 11 KB, 229x221, 1534223462385.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
15950846

>>15950678
>it's written here that ancient magic man said so, it must be true!

>> No.15950854

>>15950723
Okay might be based but first say it in sentences that can be understod

>> No.15950861

>>15950627
Take the new-age NDE pill

>> No.15950870
File: 183 KB, 771x804, aaf.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
15950870

>>15950846

>> No.15950909

>>15946632
Spinoza is just a Western Shankara

>> No.15950931

>>15950909
I thought Spinoza was a pantheist whereas Shankara was a panentheist.

>> No.15951209
File: 474 KB, 1165x1464, La_salle_dAkhenaton_(1356-1340_av_J.C.)_(Musée_du_Caire)_(2076972086).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
15951209

Akhenaten already solved everything.

>> No.15951211
File: 232 KB, 604x453, 1586597254445.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
15951211

In Jung's "Memories, Dreams, and Reflections" he recounts a few years he spent periodically having visions of a god-like being named Philemon who taught him esoteric and mystical secrets. Later in his life he was discussing these experiences with an indian guru and the guru said that it was the spirit of his divine grace Adishankara.

Yeah, I'm thinking Jung is pretty fkn based.

>> No.15951217
File: 42 KB, 761x777, not pink.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
15951217

>>15950854
Plotinus was no rhetorician. Here's Prophets.
Then too Orpheus lifted up his lyre with his left hand and tried out a song.He sang of how the earth, sky, and sea, at one time combined together in a single form, through deadly strife became separated each from the other.

So through discord all things are steered through all.
From the whole are all things, all things from a whole,
all things are one, each part of all, all is one;
For from a single whole all these things came,
and from them in due time will one return,
That's ever one and many...
Often the same will be again, no end
will limit them, ever limited...
For so undying death invests all things,
All dies that's mortal, but the substrate was
And is immortal ever, fashioned thus,
Yet with strange images and varied form
Will change and varnish from the sight of all.

>> No.15951226

>>15950652
>They're all based.
ftfy

>> No.15951339

>>15950652
I doubt they had the linguistic capability to succinctly communicate their raw beliefs, or an intellectual population receptive enough to appreciate it. Hence why they made up a lot of fluff fairy tales to pad their teachings, else nobody would take them seriously without a dose of mysticism.

If I were to sum up all of their teachings with as little words as possible, I'd write: "We're me"

>> No.15951410

What do you think of Kashmir Shaivism? From my vague understanding, they believe everything is a grand cosmic story where Shiva plays every character.

>> No.15951784

One of the things people find difficult about Buddhism is that they say it is "life-denying". Hinduism, particularly Krishna and his Lila, seem far more life-affirming. What does Hinduism have to say about affirming life?

>> No.15951806

>>15951784
>Buddhism is life-denying
It is. Ask a Buddhist if he wants to go fishing with you and he'll think you're literal demonspawn for trying to get him to have a nice relaxing day with a nice buttery fried pike at the end of it.

>> No.15951946
File: 88 KB, 500x600, IMG_5591.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
15951946

>>15951217
>>15950723
>if I lurk 4chan constantly enough to spam every single eastern philosophy thread with random quotes from Neoplatonic texts and claim that Neoplatonism refutes them without ever actually explaining why then I might get some more people to read Plotinus!

>> No.15951969

>>15951946
those are pre-presocratic poems

>> No.15952036

>>15951969
Whatever dude, most of the stuff you spam in countless other threads is from platonic stuff or egyptian, either way you never explain how any of it refutes anything,

>> No.15952217

>>15944950
>asian """""philosophy"""""
yeah ok everything is one but two aren't, therefore the buddha leapt over a hare and arjuna invented the tao and whatever the fuck else, super deep bro
>inb4 filtered
stop being obsessed with eastern mystics and impressionable as fucking children, read actual philosophy, don't embarrass yourselves
"witty" semantics don't solve a fucking thing, now fuck off with the tao that can be spoken and fuck off eternally
your mumbo jumbo shankara advaita vedanta upanishads bullshit is just a collection of 2deep4u quotes by monobrow retards

>> No.15952261

>>15952217
But what's the sound of one hand clapping?

>> No.15952266

>>15947307

UG was the real deal. Found Mind is a Myth last year and I’ve read it several times over. Whatever ‘evil’ that meditation causes to the body is probably necessary to bring it to gradual enlightenment

>> No.15952286

>>15952217

why? modern western philosophy has completely abandoned theurgy and spiritual growth, it is all utilitarianism, deluzian tranny rationalization, and how to make the most money

>> No.15952287

>>15952217
did I not read something about the Tao not being what it was if it did not make some happy, or laugh, in your case SEETHE

>> No.15952378
File: 1.04 MB, 1388x1039, 1584897606950.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
15952378

>>15950590
>*unblocks it*

>> No.15952727

>>15950590
Now that I think of it, I've never seen a Jain or Jain sympathetic show up in religion threads to argue their point even though I've seen Gnostics, Neoplatonists, shamanists, Neopagans, Zoroastrians, and Old Believers.

>> No.15953072
File: 123 KB, 633x758, 1588112673359.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
15953072

>guenonfag rn

>> No.15953096
File: 1.05 MB, 1216x816, 1592672575407.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
15953096

>>15950222
>Buddha had a son
>Shankara died a virgin
OH NO NO NO NO NO HOW DO ADVIRGINS RECOVER??

>> No.15953170

>>15950627
>Seeing how Buddhism vs Advaita always comes to a draw where should we go from here?
I reckon Buddhists win most of the time considering there are multiple buddhists and only 1 perennialist advaitin over the course of 2 years

>> No.15953224

>>15952727
too busy making dosh nigga

>> No.15953226

>>15950504
He also pretty much tainted the image of Advaita in this board and the image of Traditionalism for that matter. Him popping his head in every hindusim/buddhist thread with 'p-please read Shankara bro here's the vol 1 and vol 2 pdf' has pretty much repelled anyone from actually going ahead and reading them. He really doesn't get that the more you shove things down someones throat the more they will puke it back out into their face.

>> No.15953236

>>15951806
no he'd rather just meditate rather than spend time with an insufferable fag like you

>> No.15953251

>>15950211
>I've selectively read books that criticize him, so I don't actually need to read him at all even though it answers my questions 100%
this coming from the guy that shills shankara pdfs and guenon's archive link begging people to read them

well at least you admit that you don't actually read source material

>> No.15953422

>>15952266
There's a lot of conversations with him in youtube too if you haven't see them, in fact his books are more or less editings or transcriptions of conversations like these.

>> No.15953964
File: 59 KB, 440x480, robertadams.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
15953964

>>15944950

>> No.15954152
File: 695 KB, 840x859, face-happy-baby-happy-baby-face-11563233681249iyj53tn.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
15954152

goys, imagine you are a young cute hot girl who wants to enjoy life, be happy. would you date or marry a buddhist? for him to learn to dance is suffering...

>> No.15954608
File: 74 KB, 640x480, 1586524892844.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
15954608

Damn Buddhistbros looks like we got btfo once again... Those guenonfags called our bluffs and we was made to look a fool when we couldn't quote a single line of Nagarjuna's supposed refutations of Advaita

>> No.15954645
File: 3.69 MB, 301x385, 1595489582073.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
15954645

>not a single mention of Guenon the entire thread
>people still throw around the guenonfag insult like trannies calling everybody a trannfyphobe

>> No.15954646

>>15953226
yea the sad thing is, my instinct is still to level with him and talk to him normally, because my instinct is always to talk to someone normally and assume they can chill at the end of the day. but no matter how many times i or anyone else tries to level with him he acts like a fucking weird faggot anyway.

see >>15954608

all he wants to do is have the same internet argument about that robinson article he found, day after day, forever. just with new people i suppose, so he can epic BTFO them and samefag high five himself. not even the most interesting mentally ill person the board anymore, just a nuisance now that everyone knows to avoid

>> No.15954681

>>15954645
it's getting to you isn't it mr guenonfag?

>> No.15954697

>>15954681
You're acting like a schzophrenic.

>> No.15954701
File: 924 KB, 1275x3003, 1578542843586.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
15954701

>>15954697
>You're acting like a schzophrenic.

>> No.15954707

>>15954701
>everyone who talk to me is the guenonfag
Yes, you are like a schizo hearing voices.

>> No.15954725
File: 57 KB, 588x823, 1566546578692.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
15954725

>Yes, you are like a schizo hearing voices.

>> No.15954734
File: 39 KB, 400x250, 1591428971033.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
15954734

Truly a powerful response

>> No.15954742

Hey Guenonfag, how come you don't post pics of your naked body anymore? How come you don't then repost the same pictures of your naked body in multiple "best of /lit/" and /lit/ humor threads, pretending to be someone other than you?

How come you don't post things like this anymore?
>It's been 24 hours and none of you ming-mongs have replied to this. All the more embarrassing considering YoU CaN't HaVe Up WiThOuT dOwN mY dUdEz loooooollzzlz lmafaooo :DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD!1!111! was intended to be the epic GOTCHA retort. Writhing animals.

>> No.15954745

>>15954734
>i-im not guenonfag wallah, why are we talking about him?
>*posts guenon*
lol

>> No.15954747

>>15954742
See >>15954697

>> No.15954752

>>15954745
Lold

>> No.15954762

>>15954747
No really, how come you aren't trying to force your own naked body as a meme? It went so well for you the first five times you did it. Everyone was like wow, is that guenonfag?? His naked twinkish lanklet body without even newbie gains??

>> No.15954765
File: 207 KB, 956x574, 1576072392267.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
15954765

How do Buddhists keep doing it? How do they keep getting away with burying Hindus to the ground? Is there any hope left for e-Pajeets to flex their tiny lingams?

>> No.15954770

>>15954762
See >>15954747

>> No.15954784

>>15954765
there are no e-pajeets just a faggot who read guenon once and now posts daily about his favourite cryptobuddhist pajeet

>> No.15954800
File: 1.63 MB, 1700x3897, 1593629428160.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
15954800

>>15954784

>> No.15954825

What's happening here?

>> No.15954854

Hey Guenonfag, have a nice day and don't forget to read something

>>15954825
Banter

>> No.15954898

>>15954825
>What's happening here?
>>15954854
>Banter
*cancer from intellectual bourgeois

>> No.15954906

>>15948548
*writes numerous books*

wew

>> No.15954914

>>15947556
>this results in the predicament that Buddha is asking people to abandon something which is their inherent nature, which is silly.
it it can be abandoned, it is not the inherent nature, that's the whole drooling retard

>> No.15954991
File: 3.62 MB, 2885x2349, beyond all, all, nothing.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
15954991

>>15952036
perhaps READ the quotations
Damascius whole book is a refutation and simultaneous affirmation of Absolute Divine Simplicity, and thus also of Monism, (already denied by Proclus in his occult polytheism). The refutation is whole chapters so I post the conclusions.
περιτροπή
But I will now instead give you Proclus, who refused to truly take the step beyond as Damascius did even though they have all the same Logoi, the Autist's Autist.

>> No.15955638

>>15950184
I never said such a thing. Go read a book. Or don't, you obviously haven't anyways.

>>15950211
So you haven't actually read Nagarajuna? Then why would you have an opinion on him?

>> No.15955887

>>15955638
>So you haven't actually read Nagarajuna? Then why would you have an opinion on him?
I have an opinion on him because morons like you spam him in non-Buddhist threads and claim that he refutes Advaita, despite you not being able to actually quote any of his arguments that would support this claim.

>> No.15955900

>>15954645
every time Buddhists on /lit/ get BTFO'd in arguments there is this one neurotic schizo who comes in afterwards to perform damage control by making a dozen posts in succession ranting about and making personal attacks on muh boogeyman guenonfag, in an attempt the shift the focus of the conversation away from how incoherent and laughable much of Buddhism and its metaphysics are

>> No.15955976

>>15953964
I had never heard of him, thanks for posting him. I will be checking out some of his talks later

>> No.15955989

>>15954914
>if it can be abandoned, it is not the inherent nature
consciousness cannot be abandoned so it must be one's inherent nature, no matter what you do short of killing yourself or causing yourself to fall asleep or be knocked out etc you will always remain conscious, it never goes away

>> No.15956046

>>15954991
Okay, what does that have to do with anything in this thread?

>> No.15956155

>>15944950
This thread convinced me that Buddhism is protomaterialistic bullshit.

>> No.15956181

>>15956155
Cringe...

>> No.15956186

>>15956181
Cope

>> No.15956190

>>15956186
Seethe

>> No.15956426
File: 1.26 MB, 1199x1500, 1590944278645.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
15956426

The Chad Advaitin:
>yeah bro you're like Atman and like Atman is Brahman and like everything is Brahman bro so you're like yourself experiencing yourself bro cuz everything is Brahman bro

The Virgin Basedddhist:
>n-nooo not my heckin feelerinos o god i am soofering aaaaarrrrhgghhhh must not desire must not attach i am nothing i dont exist nothing exists that is why gautama preached liberation because nothing can get totally liberated liberation does not in any way imply something being liberated from something nothingness is totally non conceptual nothingness a thing

>> No.15956642

>>15956426
>Rāhula was the only son of Siddhārtha Gautama, and his wife and princess Yaśodharā
>Shankara took a vow of celibacy and was known as a strict brahmachari (a celibate)
Your boy was a literal incel while Based Buddha fucked a hot princess. How does that make you feel?

>> No.15956657
File: 547 KB, 594x440, 1593323056719.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
15956657

>>15956642
Based

hindu bhabis belong to BVDDHIST bulls

>> No.15956694

>>15956642
>dude COOMING lmao
you have to be at least 18 to post on 4channel

>> No.15956727
File: 1.25 MB, 855x640, Dickshitter.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
15956727

>Shankara was a literal virgin
LOL

>> No.15956757

>>15955900
this, tbqh. teaching how to become boring shit.

>> No.15956780

This thread is hilarious, had no idea Buddhists cope and seethe so hard.

>> No.15956854

This should end this...

Did Guenon ever meet Sri Ramana Maharshi?

>> No.15956872

>>15955900
>guenonfag boogeyman
This is how I know its you, you have used the same buzzword forever. Why are you so low IQ and have limited vocabulary? You literally out yourself.

>> No.15956888

>>15956780
Buddhists are pretty based tho, cant say the same for advaitins (if they even exist irl)

>> No.15956897

>>15956727
So were Kant and Kierkegaard

>> No.15956899

>>15956854
He was too disguisted to meet a pajeet, took the easy path and lived in relative luxury at a cairo apartment.

>> No.15956936

>>15955887
>guenonfag
>getting upset about others "spamming"
lmfao

>> No.15956941

Wait hold on so you finna tell me that...that uhhh....w8 so u saying that....that the....*rolls prayer wheel*.....the ''""mighty""" shankara.......was.......a vir- *chuckle* A VIRG- OH NONONONO BWAHAHAAHAHAHAHHA

>> No.15957230
File: 54 KB, 333x499, 4090509836_2dc593c460.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
15957230

Khushwant singh BTFOd shankacharya and gang

>> No.15957552
File: 145 KB, 1024x1024, 1587331666436.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
15957552

>>15946680

Of course friend, anonymous users of 4chan understand that you are basically illiterate if you don't understand the philosophical and literary significance of the Sanskrit language, Ancient Greek and Latin can go eat their hearts out.

The main problem is that the vast majority of people in real life aren't just really dumb, they're also painfully uncurious about everything. Football, beer, and boats are more than enough for them.

>> No.15958045

>>15944950
For me, it's Ramanuja.

>> No.15958075

>>15944950
Retroactively refuted by Kundakunda

>> No.15958119

he defeated toilets too

>>
Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Name
E-mail
Subject
Comment
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.
Captcha
Action