How similar are Hinduism and Buddhism?

[Anonymous No.16894953]

How much do Shankara and Nagarjuna agree?
Why did Guenon dislike Buddhism?

Trying to understand these traditions a bit more before casting any sort of judgement on them.

[Anonymous No.16894960]

>>16894953
Why the fuck do people keep posting eastern phil shit when all it does is unleashing an avalanche of autism?

[Anonymous No.16894966]

>>16894960
Shush

[Anonymous No.16894970]

>>16894960
Who do you think is posting about eastern religions? The autists themselves. Same with christians threads, its all about starting autistic arguments.

[Anonymous No.16894983]

>>16894960
>>16894970
I'm not trying to create fruitless arguments, i'm trying to understand these traditions more deeply..

Though other ppl are probably doing what you say

[Anonymous No.16894991]

>>16894960
because at least that autism is productive and cerebral conversation you fucking puddle-sucking troglobite, go crawl back into a fucking cave until your forebrain grows bigger

>>16894953
they're similar in most ways and radically different in others. they're similar in that they believe in karma, reincarnation, and dharma, as well as using tools like mantras, yoga, and meditation to break the cycle of reincarnation and reach enlightenment. they're different in that hinduism has traditionally always emphasized castes and believed in a pantheon of gods, whereas deities in buddhism are almost entirely absent. there are angels and demons in some sects of buddhism, but even they are still involved in the cycle of reincarnation.

[Anonymous No.16895073]

>>16894953
>How similar are Hinduism and Buddhism?
Not a lot. Buddhism is a nastika sect that shall be wiped out by Lord Kalki in the end of the Kali Yuga.
>How much do Shankara and Nagarjuna agree?
Not a lot. Shankara was a crypto-Buddhist while Nagarjuna is the very standard of orthodoxy.
>Why did Guenon dislike Buddhism?
See above.

[Anonymous No.16895103]

>>16895073
>Not a lot. Buddhism is a nastika sect that shall be wiped out by Lord Kalki in the end of the Kali Yuga.
Great. Doesn't tell me anything about their differences though does it. I understand you're passionate but let's keep it relevant and not start pointless arguments.

[Anonymous No.16895145]

>>16895103
buddhdlayarh suvipularh
vedadharma vahiskrtam
pitrdevarcana hlnarh
paraloka vilopakam

Most of the inhabitants of this city were Buddhists, who never offered
oblations to their forefathers, nor worshiped the demigods. In fact, they
never even considered what kind of life they would have after death.

dehdtma vdda bahularh
kulajdti vivarjitam dhanaih
stribhir bhaksya bhojyaih
svapardbheda darsinam

They accepted their bodies as the self because they had no information
of the eternal soul. They did not designate themselves or their families in
terms of caste, and thus there was no conception of high or low birth. As
far as earning wealth, marriage, or eating were concerned, they had no
sense of discrimination.

Sri Kalki Purana 13.41-42

[Anonymous No.16895155]

>>16894953
Practically Identical metaphysics

Starkly different paths for the soul

[Anonymous No.16895164]

>>16895145
>and thus there was no conception of high or low birth. As
>far as earning wealth, marriage, or eating were concerned, they had no sense of discrimination.
Why is this such a terrible thing. So terrible that Buddhists shall be wiped out?

[Anonymous No.16895168]

>>16894960
Guenonfag thinks that making several threads a day will convert people to his youtube video version of Hinduism. He doesn't understand that /lit/ is a slower board and his samefag astroturfing is obvious. Despite being told this constantly.

[Anonymous No.16895171]

>>16895145
>They accepted their bodies as the self
Did they though? I thought they believed the exact opposite.

I also thought Hindus and Buddhists got along pretty well.

[Anonymous No.16895178]

If this were Guenonfag don't you think some pro-Guenon posting would have occured by now?

[Anonymous No.16895183]

>>16894960
These threads actually have something to offer. It’s the usual politics/atheism masturbation threads that Are autistic

[Anonymous No.16895236]

>>16895178
This fits one of his routines

>Aw shucks aw gee fellas I just want to talk about these subjects which seem to be so popular here lately! Hey now let's not argue ha ha we can all agree Shankara is based. That's just how I see it and it's true but also just how I see it ha ha

By mid thread he will be reposting his own debunked posts from last year, denying he is samefagging, and whining about how persecuted he is. I am in favor of it because it's funny but let's not pretend it's not an old routine.

[Anonymous No.16895265]

>>16894953
I will drop some knowledge since I am seeing these threads pop up way too often.

There is absolutely nothing that eastern thought offers that is not better systematised, explained and taken to it's logical conclussions in western philosophy.
The only reason to study hindu philosophy over schools of thought like trascendental idealism for example is because:
a) you like the aesthetic but have no interest in pure philosophical matters
b) you want to fuck some 'I am really interested in Buddishm' type of basic bitch

Other than that, if you have any serious interestet in the search of truth, you can't look at these schools of eastern though as anything more than a mere aesthetical pastime.
So for all the orientalist larpers plaguing the board, make us all a favor and read Kant before coming back to post your schizo non-self bullshit.

[Anonymous No.16895275]

>>16895236
Well, I'm OP and I hope this thread doesn't get hijacked into the same copy-paste arguement in every thread. Just tryna see why a perennialist like him didn't like Buddhism but liked hinduism

[Anonymous No.16895289]

>>16895265
Point B is wrong, an ""i luv buddhism""" basic bitch would have certainly not read any buddhist philosophy

[Anonymous No.16895319]

>>16895145
What the fuck is this, a smear of Buddhism? Come on now.
>>16895265
>There is absolutely nothing that eastern thought offers that is not better systematised, explained and taken to it's logical conclussions in western philosophy.
You are a dumb, disgusting, arrogant retard. You can't find an equivalent to Eastern thought in the West after the classical age, because everything devolves into the autistic theistic-materialistic binary.
>recommends Kant
GOD JUST FUCKING GO BACK TO THE 17TH CENTURY, JESUS CHRIST YOU FUCKING RATIONALIST RETARDS PISS ME OFF SO MUCH. GOD. JUST. FUCKING. GO AWAY.
>>16894953
OP you need to specify what parts of Buddhism and Hinduism you are trying to compare. As it stands rn, all I can tell you is that Guenon disliked Buddhism because he's a spiritual Brahmin and Buddhism is a Kshatriya doctrine - it's oriented around ACTION to achieve Enlightenment. Brahmins tend to prefer reflection and at their worst, speculation, so Guenon despised the radicalism of the Buddha.

[Anonymous No.16895370]

>>16895319
I guess Hinduism and Buddhism in their broadest general sense, not hyper specific schools. Though I know mahayana is more closely related to hinduism so i guess that.

>it's oriented around ACTION to achieve Enlightenment. Brahmins tend to prefer reflection

Does Buddhism not place any importance on this reflection? I'm assuming this is philosophical reflection on the absolute and the self. How does this reflection or knowing itself lead to enlightenment?

[Anonymous No.16895419]

>>16895319
Suck my dick you fucking retard.
Anti eurocentrism is the worst thing to have happened to modern thought, giving credence to mythical interpretations of the world that have been discarded for 300 years.
Don't fool yourself or others, it is ALL and aesthetics matter. There is no truth to be found in there.

[Anonymous No.16895462]

>>16895370
>I guess Hinduism and Buddhism in their broadest general sense, not hyper specific schools. Though I know mahayana is more closely related to hinduism so i guess that.
That doesn't help much.
>>16895370
>Does Buddhism not place any importance on this reflection? I'm assuming this is philosophical reflection on the absolute and the self. How does this reflection or knowing itself lead to enlightenment?
Buddhists also utilise reflection, but generally theorising about the nature of enlightenment and the world is considered a fetter rather than a boon. One of the main tools of Buddhism is meditation, which is designed to clear the mind and open it up to enlightenment.
>>16895419
>Anti eurocentrism is the worst thing to have happened to modern thought, giving credence to mythical interpretations of the world that have been discarded for 300 years.
>he thinks the Enlightenment was a good thing
You people are the worst. If I wasn't aware of the true nature of our Indo-European heritage, guys like you would have actually pushed me to be anti-European. Thankfully, some Western vitality still survives within the ruins of your gay ideology.

[Anonymous No.16895796]

[None !sex0lQafxY No.16896271]

>>16894953
I do not know enough Hinduism nor Buddhism, but i know a little about their idea of an afterlife.

The Hindus believe in "transmigration" when you die from what i gather your soul which is separate from karma (cause and effect and all that is material) gets judged by Krishna or whatever you call God based on your karma.

Whereas the Buddhists believe in "metempsychosis" since they believe in no soul or underlying self, the thing that reincarnates is not more you than your finger is you, also the thing that reincarnates (sometimes called the subtle self) is not separate from karma but just another more mystical expression of it. This subtle self decides to reincarnate because it feels it has unattended business on earth.

[Anonymous No.16896300]

>>16896271
The way Buddhists try to explain reincarnation is so complex to the way Hindu sects explain it

[Anonymous No.16896307]

>>16896300
*compared to the way

[Anonymous No.16896311]

>>16896271
Anyone know any books or essays that deal with the concept of 'no-self' and explain it in detail?

[None !sex0lQafxY No.16896330]

>>16896311
I mean, i think you could define Buddhism itself as the belief in no-self, so pretty much all of Buddhism...

>>16896300
>>16896307
I think it makes sense, think of an atheist who believes in reincarnation, and you pretty much get it. Its secularised reincarnation almost, not saying Buddhism is secular but it does not accept any transcendence.

[Anonymous No.16896344]

>>16896330
>Its secularised reincarnation almost
I understand that, but what I dont understand is what reincarnates since there is belief in a soul, and how it can have the same consciousness as you even if you have no memories of it.

[Anonymous No.16896352]

>>16896344
*there is no belief in a soul or a self

[Anonymous No.16896358]

>>16895265
What books on Hinduism and Buddhism have you read that have given you this opinion?

>>16895370
Not him; "Mahayana" isn't really a useful designation in this regard. Chinese and Japanese Buddhism have little in common with Hinduism. However, Sri Lankan Buddhism is entirely Theravada (at least today) and involves the worship of many of the same Gods as in Hinduism.

Buddhism places varying degrees of importance on reflection. We have to be careful on this point, however. All language is ultimately conceptual and does not do justice to reality. So, reflection is important, but at some level there is just simply no "correct" statement that summarizes reality. Experience has to be lived. Meditation MUST be done. You can't just hold the "right opinions" and be done with it.

Also, adding onto his point, Guenon really didn't like change. His ideal world was hyper-static. Buddhism rejects the possibility of anything being static (ignore stuff about Nirvana and such big-brain topics, Guenon didn't like the fact that chairs could fall apart).

[None !sex0lQafxY No.16896401]

>>16896344
>and how it can have the same consciousness as you even if you have no memories of it.

It doesnt, and you do. I think.

Buddhist monks, atleast vajrayana monks speak of mystical experiences through meditations in which they relive previous lives, but that is not to say it is really a full concioussness that migrates. Rather some kinda CD ROM with lots of imprinted info, with a will of its own that gathers data from the many disc drives it enters, or a chad cock that keeps female ejaculate from the many vaginas it enters.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQ0CoQyIe7Y

This is where i got most of my info from, but from there i read some wiki sites and talked to someone who knows alot about this...

[Anonymous No.16896408]

>>16896401
Well what moves between bodies then? If its not connected to your previous body, how can you have memories of it?

[Anonymous No.16896430]

Why the fuck do you keep posting this same shit every day?? I thought this board about literature?

[None !sex0lQafxY No.16896434]

>>16896408
My personal belief is that previous lives are genuine, but that its rather inherited genetically rather that through some spiritual migration. So you have the memories of your ancestors imprinted in your own conciousness, same way an eskimo has a inherent fear of snakes, its imprinted epigenetically.

But the way i understand Buddhist belief, its some kind of being, a benevolent parasite if you want, that we require to live and be conciouss, this subtle mind. It inot us like the CD rom with windows on it is your computer, but it makes part of you.

[Anonymous No.16896443]

>>16895145
you can tell this is a christian treating other religions like christianity lmao

[Anonymous No.16896461]

>>16894953
Completely dissimilar if you compare Vedism (Rig Vedic Pantheism) or most Vaishnava sects which are strictly Personalist.

[Anonymous No.16896630]

>>16895073
I hate these Hare Krishnas

[Anonymous No.16896720]

>>16895275
>Just tryna see why a perennialist like him didn't like Buddhism but liked hinduism
Because I don't find Buddhist doctrines to be compelling after reading what I consider to be refutations of basically all the major Indian Buddhist schools. Does Buddhism have some good basic spiritual teachings as well as a repertoire of helpful meditation practices? Yes. Is its metaphysics or philosophy logically coherent and likely to describe the true nature of things? Not in my opinion. Here is just a portion of Śaṅkarācārya's classic refutation of the Abhidhamma Buddhist schools for example.

Of those who teach that everything exists (i.e. the Abhidhamma-based schools including Theravada), some admit the existence both of internal (mental) and also external realities. They admit the existence of elements external to consciousness and of products of those elements, and also of minds and of mental components. For the moment we will confine our refutation to them. In their doctrine, the elements are earth, water, fire and wind. The products are the four qualities, odour, taste, colour and touch, and the senses that perceive them, namely the senses of smell, taste, sight and touch. They hold that the four different kinds of primary atoms, the earth-atoms, wateratoms, fire-atoms and wind-atoms, being respectively solid, liquid, fiery and kinetic, combine to form the earth and other perceptible elements. There are also (as the basis for the appearance of an experiencing individual) the five ‘groups’ (skandha, of momentary factors of existence, dharma). These are formed respectively of the sense-organs and their objects (rupa), consciousness of objects associated with ego-feeling (vijnana), consciousness of objects associated with the feelings of pleasure, pain and indifference (vedana), determinate consciousness of objects (samjna) and the various drives and passions (samskara). And they believe that these groups combine to form the basis of all individual experience.

On this we make the following observation. Our opponents hold to the existence of two separate aggregates, each having their peculiar causes. One is the aggregate forming the elements and the products of the elements, which has atoms for its ultimate material cause. The other is the aggregate formed by the five ‘groups’, which has the ‘groups’ for its material cause. They speak, indeed, of an aggregate arising from each of these two causes (i.e. atoms and ‘groups’), but, says the Sutra, ‘They have no right to do so’. That is, no aggregate is rationally possible (under their terms). Why not? Because the things entering into aggregate are non-conscious, since the mind (as they conceive it) could only acquire the light of consciousness if the aggregate were already assured. They do not admit any other conscious principle such as an experiencer (a permanent conscious individual soul) or a controlling God who should exist permanently and effect the aggregation.

[Anonymous No.16896725]

>>16896720
If, however, they claim that aggregation is a spontaneous activity, it is clear that such spontaneous activity could never come to an end (and this contradicts their doctrine of nirvana or release). Appeal to the existence of ‘currents of consciousness’ (asaya) will not help either, as the latter are indeterminable as either different or non-different (from the series of pulses constituting the current). The theory also breaks down because the currents themselves are assumed to have the form of a series of discontinuous momentary flashes, so that they would be actionless and unable to promote action in others. Therefore the formation of aggregates would not be possible on the principles of the system. To this the Buddhist might reply that although no permanent conscious being effecting aggregation is admitted, whether as the experiencer or the controller, still, empirical experience is explicable on the basis of the causal chain (pratitya-samutpada) beginning with nescience. And if empirical experience is explained, nothing else is required. The factors of empirical experience, which begin with nescience, and each of which is the cause of the next member of the series, are found taught in various ways in Buddhist works, sometimes briefly, sometimes in more detail.

One finds such a list as nescience (avidya), the will to sense-experience which leads to the formation of an empirical personality in a future birth (samskara), consciousness as the core of the individual (vijnana), the psycho-physical organism in its rudimentary state (nama-rupa), the six areas of contact (or sense-experience) (sad-ayatana), sensation (sparsa), pleasurepain feeling (vedana), thirst (trsna), activity based on thirst (upadana), changeful bodily existence (bhava), resulting from the merit and demerit of activity, birth, old-age, death, grief, lamentation, pain and despair. No one, they claim, can possibly deny this chain of causation beginning with nescience. And once the whole causal chain beginning with nescience is admitted to exist, and to be revolving continually like a wheel with buckets at a well, it is found to imply that the formation of aggregates must be possible.

[Anonymous No.16896735]

>>16896725
But this is not right, as the causes so far mentioned lead to production (of the next effect in the series) only (and not to aggregation of any kind). An aggregate could be admitted if an intelligible cause were assigned for it. But it is not. Nescience and the rest may cause one another mutually in your cycle, but they only cause the rise of the next link in the chain. There is nothing to show that anything could be the cause of an aggregate. True, you claimed that if nescience and the rest were admitted, an aggregate was necessarily implied. To this, however, we reply as follows. If you mean that nescience and the rest cannot arise except in the presence of some aggregate and so are dependent on it, then (if you wish to defend your system) you still have to explain what could be the cause of the aggregate. Now, we have already shown in the course of our criticism of the Vaisesikas that aggregation is unintelligible even when supported by such assumptions as that of the existence of eternal atoms along with eternal individual experiencers who serve as permanent loci for the conservation of the effects of past action. So it will be all the less intelligible in a theory in which only atoms of momentary existence are admitted, without any permanent experiencer or any permanent locus for anything. If the Buddhist now claims that it is this causal chain beginning with nescience that is the cause of aggregation, we ask how this causal chain could ever be the cause of aggregation when it depends on aggregation for its own existence.

Perhaps you will now try to counter by saying that in this beginningless world-process (samsara) the aggregates beget one another of their own accord in a temporal series, and that nescience and the rest pertain to them. In that case, we ask: Does each new aggregate arise from the previous one regularly, and is it strictly similar to it in kind? Or is it that there is no regularity about the process, so that the new aggregate could be either similar to the previous one or different? If the new aggregate were regularly similar to the previous one, the human individual (pudgala) could never attain birth as a god or an animal or sojourn in hell. If, on the other hand, there were no regularity in the process, the human individual could suddenly become an elephant for a moment, and then a god, and then go back to being a man. So both of the alternative consequences (of taking the aggregates as causing one another spontaneously) result in a contradiction with the tenets of the Vaibhasika school.

[Anonymous No.16896742]

>>16896735
Further, you hold the view that the aggregate that exists in experience is not ‘an experiencer’ in the sense of constituting a permanent substance. But on this basis experience cannot be anything that is sought by anything else: experience must be for the sake of experience. And so liberation, too, will have to be for the sake of liberation. There cannot be anyone else, any seeker of liberation (mumuksu). If there were anyone who sought either experience or liberation, he would have to exist at the time of his experience of liberation. And if he did this, that would contradict the dogma that all is momentary. So the Sutra means that even if nescience and the rest (of the Buddhist’s causal chain) could cause each other to come into existence, there still could not be an aggregate. For the latter cannot be established when no experiencer is admitted.

[Anonymous No.16896806]

>>16896720
>>16896725
>>16896735
>>16896725
>>16896742
no one reads this shit, you need to use your own words to breifly summerize your thoughts you brainlet. this is not a blog, this is a forum for discussionm, its hardley a discussion if you just copy past some wall of text that you yourself fail to understand since you cant even summerize it. FAGOOT

[Anonymous No.16897066]

>>16896443
>Puranas
>Christian
Get a load of this Mleccha

[Anonymous No.16897386]

>>16896720
But have you read any Buddhist responses to those refutations, in the case of Nagarjuna, as Shankara came after Nagarjuna, he couldn't defend himself, so i'm curious if there are any responses to the refutations.

[Anonymous No.16897403]

>>16895168
Guenonfag is a myth

[Anonymous No.16897501]

>>16897386
>so i'm curious if there are any responses to the refutations.
Not a single Buddhist thinker/philosopher from Shankara's time onwards ever provided an answer to Shankara's criticisms as far as I'm aware

[Anonymous No.16897556]

>>16897501
Wow, is this really the case? No-one's even tried?

[Anonymous No.16897636]

>>16897556
I have searched for it before and looked through some of the academic literature on Hindu vs Buddhist polemics but came up with nothing

[Anonymous No.16897669]

>>16897386
Most Buddhists have just ignored Shankara, for the same reasons most Hindus have: he's a literally who. He's an incredibly minor figure in Hindu thought, and by the time he comes along Buddhism had over a thousand years of intellectual traditition and momentum behind it. Some random heretic of a false religion in India (which, at the time, Buddhism had basically abandoned centuries prior) saying OH, BUT HAVE YOU CONSIDERED ~THIS~ didn't really draw much attention. Buddhism had decided Atman to be silly and non-existent centuries ago, case closed.

This is particularly a problem because Shankara isn't really aware of what the Madhyamakins, or Buddhists in general because he also has a go at Yogacara, think, and has a bad habit of talking past them. He uses a lot of arguments that Nagarjuna rips to shreds (the "lamps illuminating themselves" argument, for example). The image that Guenonfag spams of those six pages really hammer this home.

Having said that, as a Westerner, one really glaring point of critique in the MMK is that he spends most of it critiquing what I would basically summarize as "assuming that the world operates based on the grammatical rules of Sanskrit". To us, this seems kind of silly, but you have to remember that in Hinduism Sanskrit is literally the language that the Gods speak and the grammatical rules of Sanskrit are literally how the world operates. So, when Nagarjuna brings out what amounts to Zeno's Paradoxes and says "how can you say anything really happens?" and "where is a cause stored? where is an effect stored?", he's really critiquing an idea that's just flat out absent in Western thought. Westerners ditched the idea that Hebrew was somehow particularly descriptive of reality in like, 300AD, and while ideas of the "language of God" still persist, this language isn't one spoken now. So, while Nagarjuna attacks certain linguistic structures, you could probably come up with alternative linguistic frameworks that are more accurately descriptive of reality (the big takeaway from the MMK is that language doesn't accurately describe reality).

David Bohm, the physicist, tried to do just this in Wholeness and Implicate Order, but ditched the project.

[Anonymous No.16897684]

>>16897669
>Most Buddhists have just ignored Shankara, for the same reasons most Hindus have: he's a literally who
how stupid do you think we are?

[Anonymous No.16897699]

>>16897684
Given that you have a very strongly held opinion on a topic you know absolutely nothing about, I think you're very stupid indeed.

[Anonymous No.16897712]

>>16897669
>Sanskrit is literally the language that the Gods speak
Why yes Sanskrit is the language spoken by the Supreme Personality of Godhead

[Anonymous No.16897751]

>>16897699
>Buddhists wrote replies to and attempted to refute a bunch of Hindu philosophers before Shankara including Kumarila Bhatta and Gaudapada, right up until Shankra's time
>Shankara then pens one of the most thorough critiques of multiple Buddhist schools which any Hindu philosopher had made at that point
>then the Buddhists coincidentally fall silent and stop trying to write refutations of Hindu philosophers
>But every new Vedanta school founder as well as various non-Vedantists all felt compelled to address Advaita in their writings and stake out what their position was in relation to it and why and where they disagreed with Advaita

>B-b-b-but the reasons the Buddhists tapped out of further debates with Hindu schools was because Shankara was a n-nobody...
The cope is obvious

[Anonymous No.16897807]

>>16897751
This was already addressed in >>16897669.

[Anonymous No.16897820]

>>16896300
what exactly is this image conveying?

[Anonymous No.16897830]

>>16894960
pajeets found the alt right and this started happening

[Anonymous No.16897857]

>>16897807
No it wasn’t you straight up lied. Almost every major Hindu philosopher after Shankara either agreed with Advaita or tried to either refute Advaita and establish the superiority of their own doctrine over it; they all felt like they were obliged to address it; so to say he is a “literally who” or minor character in Hindu philosophy is just false. He is widely acknowledged by academics to be one of the most Hindu philosophers

Here this is the description of him in the Encyclopedia Brittanica written by the Buddhism/Hinduism scholar Hajime Nakamura

> Shankara, also called Shankaracharya, (born 700?, Kaladi village?, India—died 750?, Kedarnath), philosopher and theologian, most renowned exponent of the Advaita Vedanta school of philosophy, from whose doctrines the main currents of modern Indian thought are derived

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Shankara

“ whose doctrines the main currents of modern Indian thought are derived” is a pretty big claim to make, but Nakamura and various other academics have no problem acknowledging it and saying so. It is just deceitful Buddhists online trying to gaslight people who pretend otherwise.

[Anonymous No.16897867]

>>16897857
*one of the most influential

[Anonymous No.16897932]

>>16897820
It's the wheel of samsara.

>>16897857
I'm sure whatever youtuber you've latched onto this week can give you a fantastic rundown of how this one rando BTFOd a 2,500 year old religious tradition and everyone is just COPEing or whatever, but the simple fact is that most Hindus, let alone Buddhists, don't care about this guy. His philosophy was never very popular and was constantly mocked. The historical account by orthodox Hindus was that it was a creation of Vishnu to shame Buddhists into converting rather than be associated with such a ridiculous doctrine.

There doesn't need to be some massive debate war over this because at the end of the day Shankara brings nothing new to the table. He proposes an atman, Buddhists hold to anatman. Do you get upset that the Pope doesn't feel the need to write a bull every time the Amazing Atheist makes a new video too?

[Anonymous No.16897978]

>>16897932
>There doesn't need to be some massive debate war over this
Nobody was making it into one, I was simply pointing out that what you said about that point isn’t true at all. If you don’t want me to point this out then don’t lie

[Anonymous No.16898044]

>>16897857
Have you considered that the reason there aren't more people following your meme-philosopher is because his ideas just aren't very good? Something like 95% of Hindus follow forms of Hinduism that completely reject Advaita Vedanta as on its face absurd. Yeah, sure, their thinkers were "influenced" by it, in that they wrote scathing critiques.

Why then would you expect Buddhists, who just reject the core ideas of Hinduism entirely, to adopt an incredibly minor variant of Hinduism that, quite frankly, doesn't bring anything new to the table?

[Anonymous No.16898232]

>>16898044
Especially when more accessible (both intellectually and culturally) schools like Shakta and Trika are out there and have active and relatively large western translation and communities?
Trika is just so much more superior in every way, and is not bound up in caste and gender bullshit

[Anonymous No.16898243]

>>16896630
What's wrong with Hare Krishna? Genuine question, don't know much about them

[Anonymous No.16898379]

>>16898243
They are a cross between a hippies and Jehova's witnesses

[Anonymous No.16898385]

>>16898379
Sounds like pure cancer. Any more details?

[Anonymous No.16898407]

>>16898385
The founder Prabhupad was kind of based, but since he chose New York to start his ministry a lot of Jews joined and subverted the movement.

[Anonymous No.16898416]

not the other guy. he may have a different experience.

they come out to colleges in Southern California. (saw the same guy at El Camino College and Cal Poly Pomona). They give you "free" books like the Bhagavad Gita and of course pressure you to donate. I gave the guy a $5 and then he said "well...people usually donate $10." I looked at him for a second and gave him the $10 since $10 for three high quality paperbacks isn't bad.

They don't try to convert you to their faith but don't let the woo-woo spiritual image fool you. they're all about the mighty dollar.

[Anonymous No.16898426]

>>16898416
>>16898385

[Anonymous No.16898544]

Advaita Vedanta - the fundamental self is Brahman, pure awareness
Buddhism - there is no unchanging, permanent self
Hindu mythology - really cool it teaches you about life and stuff
Hinduism - a word that causes arguments

You decide if the Advaita Vedanta people or the Buddhists are right through your own meditation and spiritual self-inquiry.

[Anonymous No.16898814]

>>16896330
>not saying Buddhism is secular but it does not accept any transcendence.
What is nirvana to a Buddhist? I wonder if they just tried to skip some of the smaller metaphysical truths.

[Anonymous No.16898873]

>>16898814
>What is nirvana to a Buddhist?
The Buddhist schools disagree with each other on the extent to which Nirvana can actually be regarded as a transcendent spiritual reality or not.

[Anonymous No.16899022]

>>16896806
I read it because I seek to understand. Some people will read and some won't. But yes, the lazy summarization would be nice too.

[Anonymous No.16899097]

>>16898044
It's also important to note that vedanta declined in India after the Muslim conquests, a big reason for the revival of vedanta in India is the European conquests and, I shit you not, Theosophy. The Europeans had conquered India and wanted to understand it better, and there was also growing interest in other cultures in Europe in the 1700s. This led to efforts to translate Sanskrit texts and recover the "original" India talked about in the ancient Greek/Roman sources, which Euros assumed had degraded to its present state of poos.

The Euros doing this work were platonists and protestants and saw the world through these lenses so they reconstructed the history of Indian thought on an idealist basis, assuming that all ascetics = mystics, all real philosophers = deists/monists, and everybody else = "the rest", not very important.

Indians working for them in local administration wanted to prove to Europe that India had a great past, but they also assumed that having a great past meant conforming to this deism/monism with orientalist mysticism image. In the 1900s lots of neovedanta movements begin to appear.

Then the Theosophists turned orientalism and neoplatonism/swedenborgian mysticism into a religion and claimed it originally came from India and Tibet. You would think this would be a minor influence, but personal Theosophist influence in India was huge. A great many Indians instrumental in the nationalist revival and independence of India were Theosophists or close to being one.

Before all of this happened vedanta had become pretty minor in India, it was losing distinctness and blending with Sufism just before Europeans showed up actually.

[Anonymous No.16899108]

>>16897684
>how stupid do you think we are?
Even Christian apologist Ravi Zacharias who was a Hindu mentioned that Shankara was among the best of their philosophers. I think what that guy was trying to say was that Buddhism ended up taking a different route sort of in the same manner as a materialist would reject transcendental realities?

there is a huge problem in religions where you have a bunch of plebs called the multitude of dirt and then you have the Geniuses and Mystics of it. the lowest common denominator factors of religion are going to be crude and unenlightened compared to the parts of gold and gems. So it becomes even more difficult to see what is what. Those of all religions stumble over the truth.

[Anonymous No.16899183]

>>16899097
>Before all of this happened vedanta had become pretty minor in India
source? This sounds like BS, academics generally seem to be in agreement that the various forms of Vedanta pretty much came to dominate Hinduism in terms of forming the theological background for the various sects.

>it was losing distinctness and blending with Sufism just before Europeans showed up actually.
Not exactly, the actual Vedanta traditions as represented by their respective sampradayas were not blending with Sufism, that was rather the work of other people outside the Hindu orthodoxy like Kabir etc who were mixed both Vedanta and Sufism, but that is different from Vedanta as such blending

[Anonymous No.16899212]

>>16895265
>There is absolutely nothing that eastern thought offers that is not better systematised, explained and taken to it's logical conclussions in western philosophy
Based retard. Enjoy your word-salad thought-baggage. It won't get you through the gate. 'Systematized, explained, taken to its logical conclusion'--talk about missing the fucking point. Jeeze louise. You're holding onto conceptual phantoms like your life depends on it

[Anonymous No.16900758]

>>16897857
retard

[Anonymous No.16901035]

>>16899212
Read Kant you imbecile, the phenomena noumena dystinction blows the fuck away the bullshit eastern metaphysics of non being.

[Anonymous No.16901061]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBFWDeOGicM&t=3s

[Anonymous No.16901069]

>>16896271
The no self meme gets pushed a lot but none of the speakers on Buddhism (legitimate ones, not californian "gurus") I've heard over the years describe it like this. Seems like this annihilation of self is a purely western misunderstanding.

[Anonymous No.16901072]

>>16895265>>16895419

exactly this. western retards prefer mental masturbation over practice. So eastern teaching is torture for them.

[Anonymous No.16901074]

>>16901035
lol kant was a racist careerist for 60 years and then one day he decided to push for secular humanism because it was trendy. His little ''white lies are okay if people I talk to do not expect me to say the truth'' is a huge cope.
Literal r8ddit thru and thru.
Also his little rambling about the condition for knowledge is a pathetic cope after Hume, and he never ever lived like what he preached, like any intellectual since the renaissance.
Kant is quintessential humanistic, hence, garbage, see

[Anonymous No.16901081]

>>16895073
>Not a lot. Buddhism is a nastika sect that shall be wiped out by Lord Kalki in the end of the Kali Yuga.
false

[Anonymous No.16901088]

>>16896358
>However, Sri Lankan Buddhism is entirely Theravada (at least today) and involves the worship of many of the same Gods as in Hinduism.
worshiping gods is useless in buddhism

[Anonymous No.16901092]

>>16896434
>My personal belief is that previous lives are genuine, but that its rather inherited genetically rather that through some spiritual migration. So you have the memories of your ancestors imprinted in your own conciousness, same way an eskimo has a inherent fear of snakes, its imprinted epigenetically.
Doesn't jive with the formless realms

[doubtposting !!0CYbMy7gCdH No.16901120]

>>16894953
>All religions are exactly the same

[Anonymous No.16901124]

>>16897857
>Shankara
Shankara wasn't even a Brahmin lol. He's pure trash.

[Anonymous No.16901126]

>>16897403
A Sorelian myth at that

[Anonymous No.16901147]

>>16895796
Wildly accurate despite it's simplicity.

[Anonymous No.16901190]

>>16901072
>>16901074
There you go, proving my point again and again.
If you are a white westerner spending endless hours trying to unravel the subtleties of Mahayana you will never achieve anything meaningful.
If you honestly take those schools of thought as anything more than an aesthetic complement to your philosophical education to score with some hippy whore then you are beyond saving.
Everything worthwhile or meaningful has been said between Plato, Kant and Hegel.
You have all been tricked by the pajeets trying to equate Nagarjuna woth Plato or some other inane shit.

[Anonymous No.16901334]

>>16894953
Hinduism is basically the old Brahmanism of India with Buddhism mixed in with it.
I forget when this happened, there are various offshoot schools of Buddhism, like every other religion.

[Anonymous No.16902169]

>>16896720
>Does Buddhism have some good basic spiritual teachings as well as a repertoire of helpful meditation practices? Yes.
what do u think of the jhanas

[Anonymous No.16902210]

>>16897669
do u have a good introductory book on mmk?
the anatta doctrine doesnt make sense at all to me, i come from vedanta, but i love the buddhist discourse on dukkha

[Anonymous No.16902276]

>>16901088
To get Nirvana, sure, but they can still give you material benefits, or fuck you up out of anger.

>>16901190
What Buddhist and/or Hindu texts have you read to give you this idea?

>>16902210
Get the Siderits and Katsura translation titled "Nagarjuna's Middle Way". It's up on libgen. The MMK is written in a specific style of a relatively terse poem. The poem would be memorized by a student, and then the teacher would explain the intricacies of each line. This style came about as a means of memory aid (just ramble off a line from muscle memory and then explain it). In the case of the MMK, this is relayed to us by commentaries. Nagarjuna lived around 200AD, and he seemed to be at the tail end of this style, as he actually wrote a number of other works (like the Seventy Stanzas on Emptiness) where he writes the poem, and then just writes down what everything means. If he did this with the MMK, his big explanatory prose didn't survive very long (many of the commentators are writing within a few centuries of him)

[Anonymous No.16902327]

>>16901124
Wrong, he was born to a family of Nambudiri Brahmins

[Anonymous No.16902384]

>>16897751
>Shankara then pens one of the most thorough critiques of multiple Buddhist schools which any Hindu philosopher had made at that point
his critiques were laughed at by Ramanuja and Madhva, the Buddhist had no need to 'respond' to anything he wrote because they more or less agreed with it (Bhaviveka for example welcomed advaita). No one took him seriously until the 19th century neo-vedantins tried to shill him and failed.

[Anonymous No.16902402]

>>16902276
Is this the best translation? What about the Garfield one?

[Anonymous No.16902416]

>>16897830
>pajeets found the alt right
Other way around

[Anonymous No.16902439]

>>16895164
>Why is this such a terrible thing. So terrible that Buddhists shall be wiped out?
Lord Krishna already explained in the Bhagavad Gita the importance of preventing case mixture and its effects on society, see pic. Also, Buddhism is a form of misguidance puroposely spread to demons by the avatar Buddha

[Anonymous No.16902443]

>>16902439
*caste

[Anonymous No.16902451]

>>16902439
>Also, Buddhism is a form of misguidance puroposely spread to demons by the avatar Buddha
wat

[Anonymous No.16902472]

>>16902451
Bhagavata Purana 1.3-
>“When kali yuga ensues, to confound the enemies of the gods, he will be born as Jina’s son, in the land of Kikata and will be named Buddha.”
There is a longer account of it elsewhere. The gods beg for help against demons, Vishnu transforms into an ascetic and preaches the rejection of the Vedas, anatman and other false doctrines, and the demons are overcome and destroyed

[Anonymous No.16902482]

>>16902402
I've only read Siderits. I've heard from people more knowledgeable about the actual textual history and hermeneutics of the MMK that the Siderits translation is better, but again, I can't actually attest to that personally.

[Anonymous No.16902500]

>>16902472
But in the srimad bhagavatam, the Buddha is said to be an avatar of Vishnu.

[Anonymous No.16902502]

>>16902384
>his critiques were laughed at by Ramanuja and Madhva
Why do Buddhists on /lit/ try to lie and gaslight people so much? Is it because they all view Buddhism as just being a quasi-materialism where there are no real consequences for anything and no matter what when you die you are dissolved in the void? Or is it because they have become so dissociated from no-self teachings that they don't even realize what they are doing?

Ramanuja and Madhva did not laugh at Shankara's criticisms of Buddhism but they in fact copied them. Pic related is from the first part of Ramanuja's criticism of Buddhism in his Brahma Sutra commentary. See how it compares to Shankara's here >>16896720, it is mostly the same, the criticisms of Yogachara Buddhism which come after this Ramanuja largely copies from Shankara as well.

>the Buddhist had no need to 'respond' to anything he wrote because they more or less agreed with it
Yeah dude the Sarvastivadins and Yogacharas actually agreed with Shankara when he trashed them lol, what a retard

[Anonymous No.16902517]

>>16902500
The Srimad Bhagavatam is the Bhagavata Purana. When it says that Buddha is an avatar of Vishnu it says that he incarnated as Buddha to teach a false doctrine to some demons so that they would be sedated and made harmless so that they could be vanquished. The Purana doesn't say that anything about Buddhist teachings are good. This has been misunderstood in the popular Hindu conception as meaning that Buddha was a great spiritual teacher when the Purana actually implies the opposite

[Anonymous No.16902521]

>>16902500
I’m literally quoting the Srimad Bhagavatam.

[Anonymous No.16902524]

>>16902384
what did bhaviveka and buddhists in general says about vedanta ? i know a whiteheadien buddhist who thinks that nirvana and the highest samadhi of the yoga can be equated, even tho nirvana is higher than the onto-theological substantial god of hinduism
hinduism is best for heaven
buddhism is best for enlightenment
https://www.lulu.com/en/en/shop/wim-van-den-dungen/the-yoga-s%C5%ABtra-of-pata%C3%B1jali-translations-and-commentary/paperback/product-1jz256dw.html?page=1&pageSize=4

[Anonymous No.16902531]

>>16902502
>NOOOOOOO RAMANUJA IS JUST A CRYPTO-ADVAITIN

[Anonymous No.16902545]

>>16902531
>uh oh I got caught flagrantly lying
>better post a wojack, that'll help

[Anonymous No.16902554]

>>16902531
this

ironic how advaita accuse other figureheads of plagiarism when their figurehead is arch plagiarizer, weaklings really.

[Anonymous No.16902557]

>>16902554
Based (pbuh)

[Anonymous No.16902564]

>>16902524

[Anonymous No.16902571]

I know its not directly related to the thread, but why does Ramanuja say that Bhakti was the only valid path to Moksha?

[Anonymous No.16902578]

>>16902554
>*vanquishes Buddhism from India for all time with his irrefutable criticisms that not a single Buddhist ever had the brains to refute*

nothing personal kid

[Anonymous No.16902588]

>>16902524
>Bhāviveka’s portrayal of Vedānta is particularly intriguing, if somewhat difficult to pin down....In the Madhyamakahrdayakārikā, Bhāviveka redefines Vedāntic concepts in order to show how they might fit into the conceptual universe of Madhyamaka Buddhism. In chapter 4, a Hīnayāna interlocutor accuses the Mahāyāna Buddhist of being a crypto-Vedāntin, paralleling later Vedāntins who accuse the Advaita Vedānta of crypto-Buddhism. This may be the earliest acknowledgment in a Sanskrit text of the similarity between the two schools. According to the Hīnayāna opponent, “the Mahāyāna is not doxography because it is not included in the Sūtrāntas, etc., or because it is a teaching of another path [than the Buddha’s], similar to the Vedānta system.” Bhāviveka responds to this opponent by conceding the similarity, but then he traces this similarity to the Buddha’s influence: “Everything that has been well said in the Vedānta was spoken by the Buddha.” Again, at the end of his rather scathing critique of the Vedānta doctrine in chapter 8 of the Madhyamakahrdayakārikā, Bhāviveka remarks: “Accepting that this splendid teaching of the Buddha is free from fault, the Vedāntins, full of desire, have claimed it as their own.” But what in the pre–Śankara Vedānta of the sixth century does Bhāviveka see as overlapping with Madhyamaka Buddhism? In spite of their many differences, he observes that they appear to share the doctrine of non-origination (ajātivāda), which states that nothing really ever comes into or passes out of existence. Nāgārjuna attempts to prove in his Mūlamadhyamakakārikā that causality is only a conventional truth and cannot be part of the ultimate nature of things. Something similar appears in the Māndūkyakārikā of Gaudapāda (6th century CE). For Gaudapāda, non- origination means that all that is originated must be ultimately unreal (mithyā), since real things do not change. As a proto-Advaitin, Gaudapāda concludes that the only reality is the absolute and beginningless self (ātman) described in the Upanisads. This is certainly too much for Bhāviveka to concede. Instead of re-reading Mādhyamika denials of causation in terms of an Upanisadic ultimate self, as Gaudapāda does, Bhāviveka turns the tables in rereading the self not as an absolute entity but as the abstract concept of non- origination: Non-origination is the nature (svabhāva) of beings. Because it is not produced and does not perish, it is also called the “self” (ātman). . . . If it is just this sort of self that you [the Vedāntin] mean, then that [concept of self] is proper and without error, because of the many common properties it shares, such as its name. (Nicholson, 2010)

Buddhists were always chill with crypto-buddhists like Shankara even though Shankara had a hate boner for them. This is in stark contrast to Advaitins who have Buddhists living rent free in their heads (and their doctrines). The discrepancy is pretty telling and its playing out in this board.

[Anonymous No.16902589]

>>16902524
>>16902564

[Anonymous No.16902595]

>>16902578
>*vanquishes Advaita from India for all time with his irrefutable criticisms that not a single Advaitin ever had the brains to refute*
>*coins the word crypto-buddhism*

[Anonymous No.16902609]

>>16902524
>>16902564
>>16902589

[Anonymous No.16902627]

>>16902578
>nothing personal kid
why yes Personality is sunyata, how could you tell?

[Anonymous No.16902657]

>>16902564
>>16902589
>>16902609
based

[Anonymous No.16902674]

>>16902595
Except that Advaita is alive and well and functioning Advaita temples and centers of teaching can be found all over India

[Anonymous No.16902690]

>>16902588
>even though Shankara had a hate boner for them.
more like he saw right through their sophistry

[Anonymous No.16902701]

>>16897751
Shankara is but a footnote in history and his adherents always enjoyed minority status throughout much of Indian development, why fight reality...

[Anonymous No.16902709]

>>16902674
Advaita is enjoyed by like 0.0001% of Indians, it isn’t doing so well unfortunately.

[Anonymous No.16902747]

>>16902701
Yes, because it is oriented mainly around sannyasa, Advaita is primarily meant for the spiritual elite who take on monasticism, which are always only going to be a small amount of the population. They wouldn't want to have to dumb down their doctrine to appeal to the masses who remain non-monks.

[Anonymous No.16902760]

>>16895319
>Buddhism is a Kshatriya doctrine - it's oriented around ACTION to achieve Enlightenment.
>why yes i did base my view of buddhism on evola, how could you tell?
Evola was projecting his mystic warrior LARP onto Buddhism just because Buddha (pbuh) was born into a Kshatriya family.

[Anonymous No.16903134]

>>16902571
>I know its not directly related to the thread, but why does Ramanuja say that Bhakti was the only valid path to Moksha?
Imo he was in love like i am.
I just read about three different schools and they are like a progressive path of enlightenment. Shankara just describes what we experience after a while. Ramanuja is in agreement with jesus christ. The mystery is that the son of god is fully human and fully god. You see the attachment the son has for the father is due to love. Mysticism involving love always involves attachment and union with a divine person. Another experience of mysticism is a kind of expansive simplicity of the godhead, the fount of the divine persons. One implies the other.

[Anonymous No.16903235]

>>16903134
You can see these things occuring in christian mysticism and in the religions here discussed. The only thing left to do is rid ourselves of the plebs who are confused over appearances. There is a big difference in going through the process and in parroting what others who have had an experience went through. The ignorance of all the children of the religions have no Authority. It is for the mature to clearly Express the fullness of the truth.

[Anonymous No.16903376]

>>16903134
>Bede presents Christian theology as drawing a clear distinction Between God and man (a notion perceived by Bede as being somewhat contrary to Ramanuja and somewhat in accordance with Madhva and Shankara); yet also as allowing for man’s participation in God’s nature (perceived to be somewhat
contrary to Madhva and somewhat in accordance with Ramanuja and Shankara); as identifying love as a crucial aspect of God’s nature (perceived to be somewhat contrary to Shankara, somewhat in agreement with Madhva and Ramanuja); and finally as identifying the universe as distinct from God (somewhat in agreement with Madhva and Shankara, but somewhat against Ramanuja).

[Anonymous No.16903661]

>>16896271
>not separate from karma but just another more mystical expression of it.
that's a pretty cool idea.

[Anonymous No.16903683]

>>16894953
Who cares what Guenon dislikes, he is even more of a bitch than you are
Read both and reach your own conclusion

[Anonymous No.16903697]

>>16897501
Examine Śāntarakṣita and Kamalaśila's refutation of monist idealism in their Advaita chapter of Tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā.

[Anonymous No.16903745]

>>16903697
Does this have an english name? Can't find any books when I search it.

[Anonymous No.16903758]

>>16897669
>Buddhism had decided Atman to be silly and non-existent centuries ago, case closed.
can the argument for this be expressed meaningfully in this setting?

[Anonymous No.16903815]

>>16898544
>Advaita Vedanta - the fundamental self is Brahman, pure awareness
>Buddhism - there is no unchanging, permanent self
are these ever adressed as rational/non-rational endpoints rather than ultimate reality? they seem to be the limit of what human thought/non-thought can be produce, not necessarily ultimate truth

[Anonymous No.16903836]

what's the next step after reading the Gita? bearing in mind I am a monotheist who does not believe in a caste system, but was completely awed by the philosophy

[Anonymous No.16903864]

>>16903745
https://archive.org/details/TattvasangrahaVol1

[Anonymous No.16903890]

>>16903864
Thank you fren

[Anonymous No.16903974]

>>16903890
Give me your opinion after reading it fren

[Anonymous No.16903979]

>>16902595
The only sage more based than Ramanuja is the Avatar of Vayu, LORD SRI MADHVACHARYA

[Anonymous No.16904010]

>>16902760
Evola is even dumber than that: he claims Shaktism/Tantra is Aryan, when it's the Dravidian reaction to Caste-exclusive movements like Advaita.
Tantra, with it's Chakras and it's Kundalini, is a genitals-and-snakes-worshipping nigger cult.

[Anonymous No.16904017]

>>16902760
Not at all. Early Buddhists worked really fucking hard to make Buddhism come off as a manly-man warrior religion. The Buddha was constantly fending off babes from all realms who wanted his enlightened dick. The Buddha wasn't some fairy perma-virgin either, he swam in pussy before enlightenment. No no, the Buddha knew celibacy was the right path because he'd explored every facet of a woman's pleasures and had realized that bliss lie not in them. He physically wrestled Mara, the demon-king of illusion and desire, to the ground and made him cry like a little bitch. The "32 Signs of a Great Man" is an ancient Pajeet attempt at describing gigachad. Deep blue eyes, a predator's skull, thick manly legs, 40 teeth (this is apparently a sign of virility).

Enlightenment is fundamentally a warrior's goal. Dispelling illusion is fundamentally a violent act.

[Anonymous No.16904019]

>>16903979
>LORD SRI
>lord lord

[Anonymous No.16904034]

On an unrelated note thanks for the reccs at the end of the last thread.

[Anonymous No.16904040]

is the goal of life enlightenment or doing good deeds?

[Anonymous No.16904044]

>>16904010
What then is the Aryan root in Hinduism? The Rg Veda?

[Anonymous No.16904072]

>>16903815
There's also the bias of Smallism there.
Why should an element, an atom, an irreducible component, be considered primary, more real?

[Anonymous No.16904085]

>>16903836
Bhagavata Purana. Indisputably.

[Anonymous No.16904095]

>>16904019
Sri doesn't mean lord, you idiot

[Anonymous No.16904098]

>>16904072
>the bias of Smallism
Retarded

>Why should an element, an atom, an irreducible component, be considered primary, more real?

>Why are the constituents of an entity, on which the existence of that entity depends and which are therefore ontologically and logically prerequisites to it, considered more real/primary?
Braindead

[Anonymous No.16904112]

>>16904095
Cope

[Anonymous No.16904113]

>>16904044
Yes.
And you can see the mythology within, as well as the language, matching Persian Avesta (RigVedic Sanskrit is mutually intelligible to Avestan.)

[Anonymous No.16904122]

>>16904098
Stunning arguments

[Anonymous No.16904131]

>>16904072
I think you're making a fair point anon

[Anonymous No.16904135]

>>16904112
Learn to fucking read
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shri

[Anonymous No.16904137]

>>16903758
The Buddha's argument can be distilled down to
>if it can change, it isn't an atman.
>if it can't change, how can it be interacted with?
>if it's existence is identical to its non-existence, then its existence (and non-existence) are incoherent
The Buddha points out that the two ways something can be, existing or not-existing, are ultimately incoherent, as the end result of either is identical. If something can't change, it can never go from unseen to seen, so it might as well not exist. So, existence and non-existence are identical. This is clearly incoherent and doesn't line up with simple observation of reality. "Existence" and "non-existence" are conceptualized as "Eternalism" and "Annihilationism". But, something that is Eternal has to have a beginning and an end in order to be interacted with, so it's not actually Eternal at all. On the other hand, something being "annihilated" is wrong. If you take a cat and smash it to a pulp, it's just a really fucked up cat, it's not "annihilated". So the entire "Eternalism vs Annihilationism" paradigm is wrong.

So, instead, he posits a "Middle Way", which rejects the Platonic (in essence, not origin) idea that the less something changes, the more real it is. All things change, therefore "realness" isn't a function of "changiness". The metaphor of a chariot is often used: you have the wheels, the axle, the cart, and the thill. Which one of these, when removed, makes it a chariot? If you swap out the wooden wheels for iron ones, is it no longer a chariot? The answer is obviously that "chariotness" is something we apply to a collection of parts. So too with humans. This often gets compared with physicalism, but that's not the case as Buddhist thought doesn't say that the brain "causes" mental phenomena, but rather that humans are composite (and as such change) and as such "usness" is just something we conceptually apply to ourselves. There's nothing saying that you can't have a soul that is part of mental phenomena, it's just that soul is also composite.

Nagarjuna takes this a step further and goes after the very idea of "causes" as being ultimately wrong-headed. HIS arguments, however, are a little more specific and shouldn't be removed from the context that they're being used in (The MMK is, according to several commentators, essentially a man wanting silence telling you to shut up). Nagarjuna's stuff is really similar to Zeno's Paradoxes in this regard, although whereas Zeno is asking for someone to come up with a better way of describing reality, Nagarjuna is telling you to just stop trying to do that (because it causes suffering).

[Anonymous No.16904143]

>>16894960
+1

Whenever I see these threads I shake my head.

[Anonymous No.16904198]

>>16904137
>if it's existence is identical to its non-existence, then its existence (and non-existence) are incoherent
>The Buddha points out that the two ways something can be, existing or not-existing, are ultimately incoherent, as the end result of either is identical.
Wat

[Anonymous No.16904206]

>>16904135
Seethe harder faggot

[Anonymous No.16904207]

>>16904137
>if it can change, it isn't an atman.
I might be wayyy off the mark here in more ways than one, but I viewed it as the atman forming a reality out of what it knows, and so when it knows "reality" it forms a self, and when it knows reality it begets a different form of existence. Kind of the old simile of it being a mirror: it gives back based on what is put in.

I view it almost a as a window, nothing more, and out of that window action springs based on what passes through it.

[Anonymous No.16904213]

>>16904113
So then which current of modern Hinduism is most within the Aryan tradition? I had thought that the Rg Veda documented the foundational prayers of all Hinduism?

[Anonymous No.16904221]

>>16904137
What do u think of

>>16903697
>>16903864

[Anonymous No.16904238]

The masses are waking up and realizing Guenon is still a new-age theosophist, just slightly more right-wing and pro-Catholic (albeit just as a stepping stone to crypto-Buddhism), and that his take of a primordial tradition (to say nothing of the ridiculous king of the world) based on advaita vedanta as the pinnacle of metaphysics, is incredibly stupid and not actually argued for by Guenon but just stated as an obvious fact you ought to accept if you don't want to be a modern...

[Anonymous No.16904250]

>>16904137
presented like this it all sounds like some form of hyper-rationalism applied to a certain set of assumptions

[Anonymous No.16904292]

>>16904198
If it can't change, then how can you see it? It can never go from "unseen" to "seen". If it is in somethings nature to exist at "t=x", then at all times before x, it isn't there, and at all times after x, it isn't there. So clearly, the entire model that something either "exists" or "non-exists" is incoherent. We need something different. The Buddha, for what it's worth, is not the only one to propose something different.

>>16904221
I'd have to take the time to read them. For what it's worth, I don't think Advaita Vedanta and Buddhism are in as large of a disagreement as the weirdos who got memed by Guenonfag make it seems.

>>16904207
There's nothing in the Buddhist tradition that says that we shouldn't use language. The Buddhist tradition posits the Two Truths Doctrine. "Conceptual Truths" are simple conceptual designations that are ultimately backed up with "you know what I mean". If I tell you to go get me a chariot, you don't say UHMMM AKTHUYUYUALLY, THARIOTS ARE CONTHEPTUAL DETHIGNATIONS, ALL I THEE ITH A COLLECTHUN OF PARTS, even though we can agree that the chariot is actually just a collection of parts. "Ultimate Truths", on the other hand, are absolute true statements about reality. There's absolutely nothing wrong with coming up with all sorts of conceptual models ("reflexive pronouns" such as "yourself" or "myself" are just flat out necessary to communicate, for example). The problem is when we start taking these as absolute truths rather than, y'know, conceptual models.

[Anonymous No.16904316]

>>16904137
>Nagarjuna's stuff is really similar to Zeno's Paradoxes in this regard, although whereas Zeno is asking for someone to come up with a better way of describing reality,
But Zeno's paradoxes have been btfo by Aristotle fren...

[Anonymous No.16904327]

>>16904292
>The problem is when we start taking these as absolute truths rather than, y'know, conceptual models.
well how does buddhism get over the immediate intuitive hickup that there was something that was unenlightened- be it an experience or whatever- which is then enlightened?
>inb4 shankarafags pipe up again

[Anonymous No.16904343]

>>16904292
>If it is in somethings nature to exist at "t=x", then at all times before x, it isn't there, and at all times after x, it isn't there. So clearly, the entire model that something either "exists" or "non-exists" is incoherent.
is this based on some form of assumption that only things that are perceived exist?

[Anonymous No.16904374]

>>16904010
chakras and kundalini are quite potent though

[Anonymous No.16904389]

>>16904292
>I'd have to take the time to read them
It's 3 short pages fren

[Anonymous No.16904395]

>>16894960
these threads used to be comfy 2 years ago

[Anonymous No.16904449]

>>16904395
We are at war, son

[Anonymous No.16904459]

>>16904395
>>16904449
it turns out that the claim that Guenonfag was ineffectual was nothing but meek attempts at propaganda

[Anonymous No.16904710]

>>16895319
>YOU FUCKING RATIONALIST RETARDS
Kant wasn't a rationalist. You're the retard. What you mean by "rationalist" is someone who argues for what he says. You'd rather swallow up pretty narratives dressed up in mythological and aesthetic garnments as a cope, you're a larper.

[Anonymous No.16904774]

>>16904213
Unironically Arya Samaj movement and Mazdayasna (Zoroastrianism).
Hinduism is fully multicultural by the time the oral tradition is written down.

Madhva Vedanta is the most ONTOLOGICALLY Aryan of the surviving schools, but it's praxis is completely in the vegetarian, tantric order.
Mantra and Ritual, especially Agnihotra, are the core of Vedism. If you want a clear view of what actually Aryan hinduism was like, read Ramayana (first third is enough), Debroy translation (because he's the most unbiased and doesn't shove in Commentary).
You will see the Aryan lifestyle and world-order.

[Anonymous No.16904794]

>>16901074
>muh racist
>muh he believed that because it was trendy
Your pajeets authors are racist and believe in the dominant ideas of their society too.
>his little rambling about the condition for knowledge is a pathetic cope after Hume
It's a not a cope, it's an overcoming. Kant solves Hume's problems. Strangely, almost no one educated is a Humean after Kant. You'd realize this means there was actual intellectual progress there if you weren't afraid of the very idea of dialectical, i.e. timely and historical, transformations in thought. Keep respecting your irrelevant mystics because they fried their brain and recieved 'revelations' or saw 'the true nature of things' instead of demonstrating it in a trustworthy manner.

[Anonymous No.16904797]

>>16903864
>https://archive.org/details/TattvasangrahaVol1

Śāntarakṣita and Kamalaśila seem to not know what they are talking about at all when it comes to Advaita

When they write:

>The error in the view of these philosophers is a slight one- due only to the assertion of eternality (of cognition); as diversity is clearly perceived in the cognitions of colour, sound and other things. - if all these cognitions were one, then, color, sound, taste and other things would be cognizable all at once; as in an eternal entity there can be no different states.
They are making the mistake of confusing the Atman (which is devoid of qualities like color, sound etc and which consists of sentience or witnessing consciousness) with the objects of sentience like sensory perceptions. In other words they are say "an eternal consciousness would consist of consciousness of X-object, but being eternal this could never change"; but this misses the whole point since it is the sentience which is merely associated with exterior changes which is eternal and not the transient sensations which are manifested to and withdrawn from the light of that sentience. The Atman is eternal and unchanging, it has no different states; every distinguishing feature or quality in consciousness which you can point to is observed by consciousness itself and is not actually consciousness but is an insentient thing being observed by your sentience.

The commentator after this verse demonstrates that he has this misunderstanding when he writes:

>It may be held that "the cognition of sound and other things are always different 'states' of it appearing one after the other- so that the apprehension of sound etc could not be simultaneous. The answer to this is- in an eternal entity there can be no different 'states'; because the 'states' are not different from the Entity to which they belong; so that the entity to which the states belong would be liable to production and destruction, -appearance and disappearance- in the same way as the states are liable; or, conversly, the states would be eternal like the entity to which they belong
Things exterior to sentience, which are manifested to sentience, are not states of sentience. That's is like regarding the objects which you can see around you in the world such as a computer, chair or table as being "states" of the sentient entity which is yourself, i.e. it makes no sense

[Anonymous No.16904805]

>>16904797
Then they further compound their error when they write
> If, on the other hand the states are different from the entity to which they belong, then there can be no idea of the states belonging to this entity; as there is no benefit conferred by the one on the other; and this alternative (of the states being different from the Cognitions) would also be contrary to the doctrine that the eternal Cognition is the only one Entity
This makes no sense at all. To dismiss the idea that cognitions can be different from a sentient entity they say "it provides no benefit to the other" is silly. Regardless of whether it benefits or does no benefit us, we still perceive things and have exterior sensations which appear to our consciousness regardless. Furthermore, to act as though whether something is beneficial or not to something is what determines whether some relation between them takes places implies value judgements to the extent that there would need to be an omnipresent creator or mind who arranges the universe in such a way that only beneficial relations between things take place, but this would be rejected by Buddhists. The "states" are exterior to the entity that is eternal sentience, they do not combine to form an entity.

On the next page they write

>Cognition or consciousness is never apprehended as anything distinct from the cognitions of colour and other things; and inasmuch as these latter undergo variations every moment, what remains there that could be lasting?
This is foolishly begging the question, if there is no lasting sentience which is different from the colours-cognitions, then who perceives the colour-cognition? Surely, when I perceive a blue sky, and then look at a green forest, the perception of the blue sky does not have its own awareness or sentience arises with that sensation and which perceives the next sensation. But rather sentience is that awareness which persists inbetween individual cognitions of things, and which is cognizant of the transition from one external cognition to another. What they are claiming is basically what the NPC meme is about "there is no inner experience or consciousness, just a smattering of sense data", yeah okay NPC. That they say this sentience cannot be perceived or inferred is not a problem, since as the perceiver who apprehends the actions of the mind, sentience is not an object of perception, and as the inferring-subject who witnesses the mind infer it is not an object of inference.

The second to last point raised about liberation being impossible when there is only one eternal cognition is similarly predicated on the confusing between and conflation of the entity which is sentience as such, with the exterior changing cognitions, so this one can be dismissed out of hand as I have already explained why it is wrong.

[Anonymous No.16904817]

>>16904805
Shantaraksita belongs to the latter Yogacharin school of Dharmakirti and Dinnaga (also called Svatantra-Vijnanavada) and held to the same subjective idealist views about only momentary cognitons being real. Shankara completely demolished this viewpoint in his Brahma Sutra Bhasya when he pens a lengthy criticism of Yogachara, quoting from one of Dinnagas works in doing so (the first part of which is in pic related on one of the last pages). Not only did Shantaraksita completely fail to refute Shankara's demolishing of the Svatantra-Vijnanavada doctrines which Shantaraksita himself follows, but Shantaraksita got the basic facts about Advaita wrong and what he criticisms does not resemble Advaita doctrine in the slightest

>With the end of Svatantra-Vijnanavada virtually ended Buddhist philosophy in India. As this school degenerated into pluralistic subjectivism, it has been vehemently criticised by the absolutists, within its own fold by the later Madhyamikas like Chandrakirti and Shantideva and outside its fold by the great Shankaracharya. It is not our purpose to discuss this school in this work. We may remark here that some scholars include Shantaraksita, the famous author of the great polemical work Tattva-sangraha under the Madhyamika or the Madhyamika-Yogachara school. In our view this is incorrect. In his Tattvasangraha he employs the negative dialectic to criticise other schools, but the entire work is written from the Svatantra-Vijnanavada standpoint that consciousness is the only reality and that it is momentary. He himself admits that so far as ultimate reality is concerned he follows the foot-steps of the learned Acharyas (i.e., Vasubandhu and Dinnaga) who have proved and clarified Vijnaptimatrata. This settles the issue. Poussin and Wintemitz include him under Svatantrika-Yogachara school, according to Tibetan tradition. His authorship of Madhyamikalankara, even if proved, may not make him a Madhyamika, even as the authorship of Abhidharmakosha does not make Vasubandhu a Sarvastivadin. It may be an open question whether in his later years he inclined towards the Madhyamika school. In any case, Shantaraksita’s monumental work, Tattvasangraha reveals him as a Svatantra-Vijnanavadi and not as a Madhyamika or Madhyamika-Yogachara.

- Chandradhara Sharma, The Advaita Tradition in Indian Philosophy


TLDR: Shantaraksita's criticisms in the Tattvasamgraha completely missed their mark and he failed to provide a response to Shankara's earlier refutation of his own school and doctrine.

Shankara remains the undefeated king of Indian philosophy

[Anonymous No.16904835]

>>16904817

Here is the second half of Shankara's refutation of Buddhism in his Brahma Sutra Bhasya, in this picture he mostly refutes the subjective idealist Yogachara doctrine which Dharmakirti, Dinnaga and Shantaraksita follow.

To this day these serious criticisms have remained unanswered and unsolved by Buddhists

[Anonymous No.16904836]

is it good karma to be obsessed and have a bunch of people living rent free in your head

[Anonymous No.16904855]

>>16904835
Do u have a discord to talk, vedantabro ?

[Anonymous No.16904895]

>>16904855
No I don't, but if you want to email me to talk about Indian philosophy etc you can reach me at [e-mail]

[Anonymous No.16904898]

>>16904895
what's the next move after reading the Gita?

[Anonymous No.16904912]

>>16904895
Ty vedantabro
What do u think of:
* contemplative yoga (Patanjali for ex)
* Dennis Waite?

[Anonymous No.16904917]

>>16904855
Does being an astika you believe in all that the Vedas contain or only in the metaphysics of the Upanishads?

[Anonymous No.16904919]

>>16904774
Awesome, thanks helpful soul.

[Anonymous No.16904924]

>>16904917
>>16904895
*

[Anonymous No.16904930]

>>16904895
>Brahman
>333
Not sure about this...

[Anonymous No.16904970]

>>16904898
Have you read the Upanishads yet? That would be the next important step. You can either read them with a modern commentary/notes such as those by Radhakrishnan, Olivelle etc or with the medieval commentary of Shankara. A modern edition would be good if you have not read many books on Indian philosophy and are still learning a lot of the related vocabulary. Shankara's Upanishad commentaries would be better if you feel like you already have a pretty good grasp of Hindu philosophical terminology and are ready for a really in-depth examination of the Upanishads, also this is good if you want to start studying Advaita in depth. It is better to begin with the set of 8 Shankara Upanishad commentaries translated by Gambhirananda instead of the two larger other Upanishad commentaries of his.

Swami Nikhilananda's Upanishad commentary follows that of Shankara's very closely so I would recommend Shankara's over his. Nikhilananda's occupies a middle ground where if you are going to read a summary of Shankara's interpretation you might as well just read Shankara's writings which its based on anyway.

There are a bunch of other texts I could list but the Upanishads hold higher authority than all of them due to their status as Sruti (revealed scriptures), since so many later Hindu texts and schools are based on Upanishadic doctrine it is best IMO to read the Upanishads before getting into other Hindu writings

[Anonymous No.16905021]

>>16904970
cool, ty

[Anonymous No.16905043]

Say there is no such a thing as reincarnation/transmigration, then what's the point of following buddhism? Regardless of what I do, the suffeting ends after death.

[Anonymous No.16905050]

>>16904912
> contemplative yoga (Patanjali for ex)
I have not studied it in depth but am familiar with the basic principles. It seems to have useful techniques for spiritual progress and attaining serene states of consciousness roughly comparable to the jhanas of Buddhism, but the position of Advaita is that these techniques (as defined by the Yoga darshana, not what "yoga" means in Advaita) can only bring about non-permanent (but still beneficial) spiritual attainments, but not a final and complete liberation like Moksha. I don't know enough about the Yoga darshana to say whether I agree or disagree with this take. Certainly I would say that studying the Yoga darshana is worth it though and their practices are certainly worth following if you don't have any other regular mediative/yogic practice already which you follow.
> Dennis Waite?
I have been on his site a few times and occasionally am led to it when googling about obscure questions of Advaita terminology and doctrine. I like his website, it is a nice resource. I have seen him labeled with the pejorative "neo-vedantin" before but that doesn't bother me. I have not read any of his books yet but may some day.
>>16904917
The Upanishads are just a part of the Vedic scriptures, some of the Upanishads form the content of certain Vedic layers like Brahmanas and Aranyakas. The different schools of Hinduism place the relation of the Upanishads to the earlier Vedic layers in different ways (i.e. the Mimansa darshana believe the ritual sections take precedence over the Upanishads) but to be an astika someone just has to accept the authority of the Vedas I believe.

[Anonymous No.16905081]

>>16904930
Chill bro, that's just some random number I was thrown because of already taken name. Here, contact me on this one if it makes you more comfortable

[e-mail]

[Anonymous No.16905121]

>>16905081
I'm not that other anon who wanted to contact you. I was just joking kek. But now I fully believe you are a satanist advaitin, 100%.

[Anonymous No.16905132]

>>16894953
They're basically the same. Non-dual experience has different flavours in different denominations. But essentially Huang Po and Avadhuta Gita convey the exact same experience and message

[Anonymous No.16905146]

>>16905121
that poster is not me

[Anonymous No.16905156]

>>16905146
Liar, I am you.

[Anonymous No.16905192]

>>16904794
Can't agree enough with
>fried their brains
Because that's exactly what sensory deprivation and social isolation does to you.
Occult and the adjacent Mystical practices are intentional mental breakdowns.

[Anonymous No.16905206]

>>16904898
Bhagavata Purana is the next move.

[Anonymous No.16905523]

>>16905192
t. hylic

[Anonymous No.16906551]

>>16904343
yeah that's what it seems like he was implying, not sure why he would though as that's nonsensical

[Anonymous No.16906614]

>>16905192
>Occult and the adjacent Mystical practices are intentional mental breakdowns.
I'm assuming you're a Christian. You obviously do not know what it takes for Prophets to get themselves out of the way so they can be a mouth for God.

[Anonymous No.16907245]

>>16905523
>>16906614
And you'd be wrong.
One of my favorite books is Apophthegmata Patrum, another one is Isha Upanishad, and I've been studying mysticism of all kinds since I was a boy.
You have this ridiculous paradigm of false necessity, where there's a closed set of possible paths, which are mutually exclusive.
That false necessity is a real drag on your spiritual progress

[Anonymous No.16907290]

>>16907245
t. hylic in denial

[Anonymous No.16907604]

>>16907290
>muh everyone I disagree with is a hylic
The hylic is defined by his interest in material affairs, his incapacity for spiritual experiences and higher thought. Someone like Husserl mobilized direct experience of immaterial objects, was interested in nothing but the fundamental nature of being, and wasn't a materialist. Yet he argued every single one of his thesis reasonably, proof being that he didn't refer in lieu of arguments to direct experiences that provide one with no knowledge to mobilize ; the kind of experience that, as I said, fry your brain.
If you think extremely distorted states of consciousness are inherently valuable, lacking any general conceptual and argumentative framework, you're just coping for being a brainlet and searching for aesthetically pleasing answers to the questions of life without having to actually go through the process of finding out if they're true.

[Anonymous No.16907628]

>>16907245
>You have this ridiculous paradigm of false necessity, where there's a closed set of possible paths, which are mutually exclusive.
>That false necessity is a real drag on your spiritual progress
I don't, but usually when someone says the words that you said it implies that they are a certain way though it does not necessarily mean that you are as I first interpreted you to be. Gotta love the chaos of anon.

[Anonymous No.16907675]

>>16907604
But you like most put down some things and favor other things even if there is an undercurrent of Unity to it all. It's funner to try to unite as much as possible, though if I did people would still stumble over it. Reality is reality is the simplest explanation I could give. Everyone knows it according to their uniqueness. Everyone goes through the process because that is one part of reality.

[Anonymous No.16907749]

>>16907675
Ok but some people have illusions with regards to what that reality is, and some don't. We're all acting according to whatever it is that determines being, but that doesn't mean we know what it is. I think reason is our primary guide here. Not that it's not possible to argue for the necessity of even, say, illogical things ; but to do so, you have to show why it's necessary to accept them to make sense of experiences. In the same way, I actually agree experience gives the content of thought, I don't think you can understand things you have no experience of. But some experiences have concrete consequences, like making you unable to reason or impressing you a lot, like a lot of mystic experiences, and thus they can lead you astray. My criterion there is just the content of what's being said by the mystic. I find that a lot say things indicative of brain-frying rather than demonstrating an especially potent understanding of the world. For exemple they will have "non-dual" experiences, that may have some kind of interest, I don't deny that ; but that experience will be filled with religious content particular to their own doctrinal stance : the Buddhist will say he has experienced "selflessness", while the Advaitin will say he has experienced "the True Self", and the Christian will say he has experienced "proximity to God", and all will also tell stories of visions of demons or heavens particular to their religions. My bet is that faced with such contradictions, it means this type of experience is unreliable and tainted with bias, because it's a distortion of your mental capacities.
I'm not >>16907245, I'm >>16904794 btw.

[Anonymous No.16907898]

>>16907749
>but that experience will be filled with religious content particular to their own doctrinal stance : the Buddhist will say he has experienced "selflessness", while the Advaitin will say he has experienced "the True Self", and the Christian will say he has experienced "proximity to God", and all will also tell stories of visions of demons or heavens particular to their religions. My bet is that faced with such contradictions, it means this type of experience is unreliable and tainted with bias, because it's a distortion of your mental capacities.
I think this is one of the main reasons that Buddhism was first formed. but since the truth is so immense it is good that many different religions have formed in order to try to comprehend it. Further it is good that each soul is able to be and more or less participate in it.

we all have a language and perceptions which we attempt to speak the truth through. so I try to penetrate into the perceptions to see if they are contacting what I am. But this reality as well as other lower levels of spirits can show itself through everything. Like gathers with like, it helps to form our becoming.

So there is a burning bush that is not consumed but yet has fire. But what happens is that all the magicians have their staffs that turn into snakes and if you cannot pick it up by the tail then it will rule over you. Then humans generally form One Tribe where one snake will eat the rest of them, but it still must be picked up by the tail. Once a person stops confusing the head from the tail, by not eating, they will no longer dwell in Babylon which will become desolate via spiritual poverty and the New Jerusalem shall decend from the heavens. It's gates are always open but nothing impure enters it. Those in outer Darkness weep and gnash their teeth.

[Anonymous No.16907952]

There is the law and then there is the spirit of the law. There is the cold soul and then there is the burning mind. A main process of reality is going forth from a death to a resurrection. In the end all that is left is the image of God and God. But becoming is a great part of Life too. Everything Is Ours. Everything that is has its purpose, what that purpose is is not something of itself but rather of Eternal purposes.

[Anonymous No.16907959]

>>16905043
>Say there is no such a thing as reincarnation/transmigration, then what's the point of following buddhism? Regardless of what I do, the suffeting ends after death.
indeed there is no point without births
this is what intellectuals and atheists don't get. the goal is not to ''know reality'', but only to end suffering, so if suffering ends at death, then you have nothing to do since everybody dies rather quickly.


''knowing reality'' is just a tool in buddhism, contrary to what the nonduality retards say.

[Anonymous No.16907964]

>>16907952
>There is the law and then there is the spirit of the law
This is what legalistic atheists say when they can't even follow their own rules lol.

[Anonymous No.16908008]

>>16904794
>t's a not a cope, it's an overcoming. Kant solves Hume's problems.
lol there is no notion of solve in philosophy. Philosophy is not maths dumdum. Philosophy is just opinions, likes and dislikes glorified by careerists in academia. and this is since Plato.

[Anonymous No.16908278]

>>16908008
>lol there is no notion of solve in philosophy. Philosophy is not maths dumdum.
There is. There is simply disagreement as to whether or not something is actually solved. That doesn't change the fact that it is or isn't solved. To say that "there is no truth" or "there are no valid arguments" in history because history manipulates empirical data and therefore is open to disagreement would be as retarded. You're just repeating (wrong) clichés.
How does one explain that, as I described, some opinions because very, very minor and some other very dominant? Your answer is
>Philosophy is just opinions, likes and dislikes glorified by careerists in academia. and this is since Plato.
But that's your retarded bias, that's all it is. No, philosophy is reasonable discourse, and mostly, its content shifts with progress in knowledge ; when average opinion in philosophy worsen it's because people forget older, better arguments, not because these didn't exist.
Your bullshit mysticism, on the other hand, is by definition nothing but likes and dislikes, since it's irrational. There is no arbitrer that's commonly accepted between opinions, just "direct personal experience", which provides incompatible answers. People are often convinced and change opinion when shown its logical or empirical flaws in philosophy ; I bet that never happens in your doctrinal sect. If it does, if it's not irrational, then it's within the purview of philosophy, because that's what philosophy is, rational discourse with regards to the most fundamental nature of things.

[Anonymous No.16908318]

>>16908008
Also, your accusation of "careerism" is retarded when you consider that philosophy is bad professional prospect today, and many philosophical schools of the past emphasize being marginal and having no material comfort or recognition (the epicurreans, the cynics) or indifference to social status (the stoics). Will you pretend there is no careerism among gurus and mystics? Half of them today are literally faking it for the money. If they don't count, then philosophers who are careerists aren't true philosophers either.

[Anonymous No.16908319]

>>16894960
What a pathetic post.
>>16894953
Well they're both western terms. I'd put it like this. Buddhism is a school of Indian religion. Is a heterodoxy of regular Hinduism.

[Anonymous No.16908373]

>>16895265
Fuck this is the densest, most blackhole-brain retardation I've seen in a while. The Upanishads, Bhagavad Gita and buddhist sutras etc are clear, lucid and profoundly insightful, whereas Plato, Hegel and Kant are not concise, rarely communicate the essence of their teachings and more often than not tend to obscure people ways of thinking.

You'll notice also that eastern thinking did not tend to such a degree of violence and destruction as western thought did, that is until the imperial mentality of the west conquered the east with bombs or materialism

[Anonymous No.16908390]

>>16908373
>The Upanishads, Bhagavad Gita and buddhist sutras etc are clear, lucid and profoundly insightful
Meaningless statements. The fact is that their doctrines assert obviously contradictory things, tell tales of Gods and heavens, etc., whereas philosophers painstakingly analyze fundamental subjects and generally stick to that, the odd myth in Plato or historical analysis in the german idealist tradition aside.
You only think philosophers obscure people's ways of thinking because they are careful in their treatment of a subject and thus, instead of just stating a lot of unargued shit like your references do, take time to explore all possibilities, present arguments and refute counter arguments. Sure it makes their writings more complex, but that's also why once you have a grasp on them, these ideas are clear ; because they are justified. Whereas your doctrinal texts are "clear" because they're a simple list of beliefs with little to no arguments, but when forced to actually demonstrate them, you get philosophical treatise that are as complex as those of western philosophy.
>You'll notice also that eastern thinking did not tend to such a degree of violence and destruction as western thought did, that is until the imperial mentality of the west conquered the east with bombs or materialism
kek what a fucking cope, the old trope of "western thought is totalistic and therefore oppressive". The West invents the only political philosophies of history that values individual rights and people's self-determination. Do you really think if Indians had had the ability to do so in the 15th century, they wouldn't have had conquered the world? Their epics are literally tales of conquest and murder, like all national myths.

[Anonymous No.16908418]

>Students in recent times often abandon the fundamental and pursue trivia; turning their backs on truth, they plunge into falsehood. They only consider learning in terms of career and reputation. All they have as their definitive doctrine is to take riches and status and expand their schools. Therefore their mental art is not correct, and they are affected by things.
Foyan's talking to (You)

[Anonymous No.16908443]

>>16908418
Nice meme it is not to quote people when answering them to show your disdain. So, why are you evading a direct discussion, retard? I also don't care about your irrelevant series of assertion. I'll assert philosophy is more precise and advances faster now than it did two hundred years ago, and that this is brainlet cope. And philosphers don't make much money. No one becomes a philosopher today who's not interested in the subject for its own sake.

[Anonymous No.16908491]

There are charlatans in all kinds of different things. Many philosophers were Mystics. Mystics were inspired by philosophers. Philosophers were inspired by Mystics. No one escapes from their self-freedom because it is one of the most primordial and fundamental aspects of reality.

[Anonymous No.16908497]

>>16908418
It's also a joke to imply that this "rejection of the fundamental" applies today when philosophy is more than ever focused on metaphysics and there is a revival of theology. Neither is direct experience not treated, it's central object of phenomenology which is quite an important discipline. Will you pretend there is no obsession over triva in religious communities, where people can debate for centuries about classifications of Gods, where one gets reincarnated depending on his karma, etc.?

[Anonymous No.16908506]

You can't escape from the fact that you are the judge. It shows how close of a relation you have with the divine. What sovereignty you have with your subjectivity! But as a lowly creature you're pathetic and enslaved to the lesser elements.

[Anonymous No.16908759]

>>16904797
>>16904805
>>16904817
>>16904835
Can any Buddhist respond to this?

[Anonymous No.16909206]

>>16904327
building on this: if there is only now, then why practice buddhism? I am not enlightened now, and there is only now

[Anonymous No.16909229]

>>16895073
lmao based and kalkipilled

[Anonymous No.16909230]

>>16909206
unless of course I am enlightened now

[Anonymous No.16909296]

>>16904017
good post, this is why buddhism took root in japan with the samurais

[Anonymous No.16909439]

>>16909296
Buddha rejected the caste system, rejected existence of gods or dieties, rejected ancestors worshiping, preached non violence. ( im talking about og indo buddhism here)
also for buddhist cucks saying adi shankara was crypto buddhist, buddha was a crypto vedic too, nigga literally stole concept of reincarnation, sansara, dharma,etc from vedism. adi shankara simply narrated the non duality of vedism broadly, the non duality philosophy existed in vedism long before adi shankara.

[Anonymous No.16909461]

>>16909439
if God is a dream of the Brahman, what causes the Brahman to dream?

[Anonymous No.16909481]

>>16909461
i didnt make that picture
there is no god, there is only brahman, the ultimate reality.

[Anonymous No.16909501]

>>16909481
but the Brahman has differentiated features, since its dreams have differentiated features. Wouldn't it at least be closer to claim that the Brahman is God?

[Anonymous No.16909512]

>>16909501
one might simply say: the brahman has differentiated feaetures because it dreams

[Anonymous No.16909518]

>>16904797
I don't have time to look through this whole thing right now, but I'd like to point out that Adi Śaṅkara doesn't refute Madhyamaka, just writing it off without making any arguments, yet both Śāntarakṣita and Kamalaśila consider the Vijñānavāda doctrine they espouse in Tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā to actually be provisional and the Madhyamaka position to be the definitive one. So even if Śaṅkara's arguments are good ones, they aren't aimed at the position that these opponents of his ultimately assent to at their highest level of analysis.

>>16904835
I have read the "section" on Madhyamaka in BSB. It is short, dismissive, and contains no actual argument. It is obvious that Madhyamaka was simply not popular at that time like Vijñānavāda was.

BSB contains the Advaita arguments against the particular strand of late Vijñānavāda espoused by people like Dignāga. Note that this strand differs from the earlier Vijñānavāda espoused by Vasubandhu and so forth in some ways.

As far as I know, Madhyamaka has only really received criticisms of Nyāya origin. For whatever reason, Madhyamaka did not receive much attention from other Indian religious groups, perhaps because of its contextualist epistemology that would have been anathema to the presupposition of late classical Indian philosophy that epistemology is "first philosophy."

Now from the Buddhist side, there is also a Madhyamaka discussion of Vedānta found in Tarkajvālā. The chapter has been translated Olle Qvarnström. I think that predates Adi Śaṅkara's specific Vedānta position, though, so it might not be that helpful.

[Anonymous No.16909520]

>>16909501
there is no sky daddy lmao, brahman has no differentiated feature,
universe is called brahmaaanda (egg of brahma) in sanskrit, so basically everything in this universe and beyond is brahma.

[Anonymous No.16909533]

>>16909520
yes, but.. you don't seem to get what I'm saying here. If there is only brahma, then why does the brahma lay an egg?

[Anonymous No.16909538]

>>16909520
>sky daddy
this is a christian confusion btw and I do not subscribe to it. but there do seem to be salient features of things, no? "enlightenment is good". "there is karma". these are things that imply a will

[Anonymous No.16909549]

>>16909533
ovum is also called an egg. doesnt mean human females lay eggs. eggs are also associated with birth in sanskrit. so universe is a part of brahman. and you are also brahman and me. basically soul or aatman is a drop in a sea called brahman.

[Anonymous No.16909558]

>>16909549
yea I get that but why can the sea be partitioned into drops and who does this? I thought a major conclusion of the Gita was that it is Vishnu that causes to be out of the Brahman that which is

[Anonymous No.16909560]

>>16904835
About : >>/lit/thread/S16475199#p16484988

> If we consider the above claim of Nagarjuna it has the following implication: given that we are conscious and have awareness of thoughts, perceptions etc, there must necessarily be a locus of sentience within the person for the apprehension of those thoughts and perceptions to take place. (...) The mental ideation not directly manifesting itself in awareness, but being witnessed by the next mental ideation which takes note of the previous one, the stream of consciousness then being a too-fast-to-notice stream of mental ideations arising, witnessing the previous, falling away, and then that next ideation doing the same in turn.

1. I'm not as certain as you are that reflexively cognizing cognitions are illogical.

2. I think that a Mādhyamika can admit reflexive cognition of a certain kind. See the chapter in Moonpaths: Ethics and Emptiness by Jan Westerhoff, I don't remember the chapter name.

3. I don't think that absent reflexive awareness, the only possibility is cognition via a subsequent mental event. See the end of section 7.3 of Nāgārjuna's Madhyamaka, also by Jan Westerhoff. The other possibility is that distinct kinds of mental objects are taken as the "locus" of cognition at different times, rather than there being a single kind of mental object which forms a stream of events that is the constant bearer of self-delusion (as some Vijñāvāda Buddhists might say).

>>16902657
Only some Kagyupas and Jonangpas think this subtle consciousness is ultimately existent. See the Mipham's commentary on the Chapter on the Ultimate in Mahāyānasūtrālaṃkāra. For a larger exposition of the ideas surrounding this subtle consciousness and how it is often held to not be ultimately existent, see Mipham's commentary on Madhyamakālaṃkāra. Also, that chapter from Moonpaths I recommend subtly relates to this point.

See the Buddhist arguments dealing with the "self that is distinct from the aggregates," or the Buddhist arguments dealing with the relationship between the self and its properties.

[Anonymous No.16909562]

>>16909538
if u dont eat youll be hungry. you eating or not eating is your karma. good karma is eating since it makes you healthy and doesnt give pain to your body. englishment is good bc it unbinds you from suffering.

[Anonymous No.16909564]

it seems very much to me that buddhism is a very obtuse, obscure tradition of philosophy more than anything else, and so that to approach it from outside will take a huge load of work to even begin having a clue as to what they're talking about. Do you think that's a fair assessment? Meanwhile I find the Gita approachable, but I have to imagine a buddhist would have a criticism of it ready

[Anonymous No.16909567]

>>16909520
>sky daddy
Fedora tier term for personal God. Your own personality proves God has to be personal or He would be deprived of a quality you have

[Anonymous No.16909568]

>>16909562
so the brahman dreamed good and bad, dreamed morality

[Anonymous No.16909569]

>>16909558
>i shit everyday i wake up. who makes me shit?
you dont need sky daddy to function you. nature has its own system, water forms bc of oxygen and hydrogen and a suitable temperature. the ultimate god if you really wanna cuck yourself into is nature and nature = brahma.
ps. gita =/ advaita vedanta.
gita= dvaita vedanta for those you need sky daddy to cope the existence.

[Anonymous No.16909578]

>>16909568
there is no morality. there is no concept of good or bad for those you know brahman or who are enlightened. morality is more of a vaishnavi concept. vedas are interlaced between advaita and dvaita vedanta. just look up at ramayana.

[Anonymous No.16909585]

>>16909578
what is your understanding of why the brahman causes things to be? why is it not content with simply being, if it is the ultimate reality? what could be its goal if it is indeed in command?

[Anonymous No.16909586]

>>16909569
hylic take

[Anonymous No.16909596]

>>16909567
lmao no. Im more of a" i should follow whats best for me" type of person. Just because I like Plato's works doesnt make me Zeus follower. But I believe there is something good to take from every culture, religion. I believe sky daddy is for people who wanna be ruled by someone powerful.

[Anonymous No.16909604]

>>16894953
Who cares? But buddhism is obviously better, only schizos and pedophiles take vedanta seriously

[Anonymous No.16909608]

>>16909596
>I believe sky daddy is for people who wanna be ruled by someone powerful.
would this make people who don't believe in "sky daddy" those who believe they can rule themselves?

[Anonymous No.16909624]

>>16909596
>I believe sky daddy is for people who wanna be ruled by someone powerful.
I believe every rebellious person who rejects the Personal God is prideful and copes denying God's authority as a mean to continue being egocentric.

[Anonymous No.16909626]

>>16909578
>there is no morality. there is no concept of good or bad

Exact reason why Vedanta is false.

See : https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/hinduism-and-morality/

https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/are-we-justified-in-believing-in-objective-moral-values-and-duties/
https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/objective-or-absolute-moral-values/

[Anonymous No.16909633]

>>16909585
Brahman aint a man which brain to find a goal. There is no goal. its ok if you wanna be reborn again or if you wanna get enlightened. there is literally no goal if we talk about brahman. other schools of hinduism like vaishnavism has goals like be a good aryan or do good karma. you are brahma. your goal is the goal of brahma.
an example of Ramayana
teacher of Rama teaches to him
its the same body that hugs your wife or daughter.
but when a man hugs his wife, he has different emotions hidden in him than that of when he hugs his daughter. but an enlightened man has no such different emotions, for him he is just hugging them thats it, he sees no difference between dogs and those who eat dogs. there is no polarity in brahman there is only brahman.,

[Anonymous No.16909636]

>>16909604
asi shankara btfoed larper budhha from his own birthplace and modern day buddhism is just corrupted chink culture. cope lmao faggot

[Anonymous No.16909642]

>>16909636
Seethe harder you brainfarter

[Anonymous No.16909644]

>>16909608
>>16909624
there are 2000 religions, which one is true god?
the only thing i like about buddha is he rejected sky daddy.,
so u mean buddha was a prideful?

[Anonymous No.16909651]

>>16909636
>larper
You have no idea of the man you are slandering
>chink
Racist
>cope faggot onions
Ah, you have down syndrome, thanks for informing me

[Anonymous No.16909653]

>>16909633
>there is no polarity in brahman there is only brahman.,
and yet enlightenment does not culminate in nihilism

[Anonymous No.16909654]

>>16909642
Krsna= there are many ways to get enlightened
random nigger in /lit= believe in muh krsna

[Anonymous No.16909665]

>>16909654
>Krsna= there are many ways to get enlightened
random nigger in /lit= believe in muh krsna

[Anonymous No.16909666]

>>16909644
buddha did not answer metaphysical questions
the ultimate reality of buddhism was good
there was a teaching of set cause and effect

I don't claim to understand buddhism but the above all point to a God

[Anonymous No.16909672]

>>16909644
Yes. He was self centered, ironically. 100% ego

[Anonymous No.16909675]

>>16909666
not a god, mind you, but a God

[Anonymous No.16909787]

>>16909518
>>16909560
Based and dhammapilled

[Anonymous No.16909794]

>>16909666
buddha rejected god lmao nigger

[Anonymous No.16909801]

>>16909794
but not an ultimate order of things centered around mercy

[Anonymous No.16909809]

>>16909801
>mercy
there is only karma, you get what you do. your actions. lmao buddha probably is dissappointed that niggers like you have corrupted his teachings and filled them with dieties, schools, yada yada.

[Anonymous No.16909812]

>>16909644
Do you see Hinduism in the light of Buddhism? But your expression of God is a shallow one, if you are the one that said people who need God need someone to rule over them. It is true that many God followers are authoritarians. Brahman as basically only nature is something I have not heard before. Or he is almost like whatever things are, so the pure substance is the unity so we can call him freedom. though it has no manifestation as a self to act as a Providence to guide all to itself, in regards it's becoming to know itself and love itself. It is just a manifestation of Chaos where greater and lesser do not matter. In this regard it is a darkened freedom, like the freedom of those that don't know the full manifestation of the Trinity in my view. This freedom does not know infinite wisdom or love, which in my view is God.

So then something big can come along and start to devour everything. It could take hold of reality so much to make infinite torture. Because of darkened freedom, which implies that anything is the highest principle of reality. In my view darkened freedom is for the sake of divine sex and play. A reality without wisdom and love is a very dangerous one and Unworthy of existence.

[Anonymous No.16909819]

>>16909809
>there is only karma
there is also no-karma, which is recognized as a good that should be pursued. why is it good?

[Anonymous No.16909825]

>>16909794
Not really, pic related
>>16909666
Buddhism is trantheist not a/non-theist, pic related

[Anonymous No.16909831]

>>16909812
a lioness kills a deer to feed her baby. there is both slaughter and love for young ones here. there is only nature, nature has both bad stuffs and stuffs. those who accepted nature as it is, is enlightened. what is the ned for god? there is law of nature, karma, cycle of birth and death? there is no need for god to exist.

[Anonymous No.16909839]

>>16909825
well i dunno about chink version or dravidian version of buddhism. but the indo aryan one rejected vedas, gods, ancestors worshipping etc.
gods dont exist -buddha

[Anonymous No.16909846]

>>16909825
like half of the dieties chinks copy pasta were vedic ones btw. lol they even copied kalki making him last buddha lmao. larpers

[Anonymous No.16909849]

>>16909819
because it does not generate future births

[Anonymous No.16909851]

>>16909839
>but the indo aryan one rejected vedas, gods, ancestors worshipping etc.
>gods dont exist -buddha
No. The Pali Canon is full of devas.

[Anonymous No.16909856]

atleast vedas mention the aryan culture, if i choose to ignore puranic bs. >>16909846
buddha rejected vedas ie he rejected the whole vedic aryanism, he rejcted his own race.

[Anonymous No.16909862]

>>16909851
buddha didnt even speak pali chink language. cope lol. just accept everything you follow is not og buddhism but chink offshoot of it.

[Anonymous No.16909867]

>>16909831
Animals don't have volition. Your arguments are invalid. You simply have the wishful thinking to reject the Personal God for a neuter, nihilistic, nature-god so that you can act without guilt. To act with the volition animals don't have.

[Anonymous No.16909874]

>>16909831
Law, justice and order imply wisdom. Wisdom implies goodness. Darkened Freedom is the Divine potentiality without wisdom. It implies ignorance. It makes it's self forget so it can save itself. That's why even though nature can be horrible we find that we the darkened freedom are the deer and he is the Enlightened freedom, the lion. What this reality is in part is symbolic in nature. Higher and lower realities can be contemplated from it since it is a conjunction of both Heaven and Hell.

but I guess your idea of how reality is is that he just wants to do stuff, it doesn't matter at all about anything at all, just that things must happen. So in this view I guess he just likes to sort things out into what they are sometimes. Samsara is a truly hellish reality, that is all that you are describing.

[Anonymous No.16909878]

>>16909867
why do u need god to be moral? I personally like Manusmriti, even tho I reject gods. racemixing produces mutts harmful to race, not working out, will make me fat pig, not studying makes me low iq nigger. the only thing imp is race and rituals that strenghten race. this ism and that ism are just doctrines. if u need religion to be moral, you can never be free minded. i read socrates, i read stoicsm and i read vedas, bc they help me connect my racial roots.

[Anonymous No.16909883]

>>16909825
this sounds a lot like
>I came to some rational conclusions
>therefore I have developed a final say
which to a theist is not convincing

[Anonymous No.16909891]

>>16909849
so it belongs to the order of things that some thi

[Anonymous No.16909892]

>>16909874
when did i support freedom? there is no freedom. even for kikes. we are bonded by racial responsibities, we sacrifice certain things to bind our loved ones close. adultry. racemixing, this and that arenot freedom, they are jail for those who nknow what real freedom is.

[Anonymous No.16909898]

>>16909892
ofc if people equate religion to moral, it gets complicated. i worship nature, for she is the only truye god. and nature is brahma the ultimate reality.

[Anonymous No.16909901]

>>16909862
"I have absolutely no proof that the Buddha did not believe in devas, all Buddhist texts, early and late, contain devas, but it is you who cope lol."

"HURR DURR CHINKK MUH CHINK LOL CHINK CHINK"

Braindead

>>16909883
wtf are u talkin about, go fuckin read the pali canon u faggot
that's basic buddhism for u

[Anonymous No.16909909]

>>16909874
if u are a buddhist, you are limited to buddhism, there are good stuffs outside that religion. why not look out for them. niggers who argue on buddhism and advaita are just niggers with ego, and goyims that kikes love to use sm.

[Anonymous No.16909917]

>>16909901
buddhism rejects gods, and buddha dint speak pali.

[Anonymous No.16909919]

>>16909901
u are prolly a chink anyway, or a racetraitor.i have no interest for those who betray their culture, race for some 'buddha' religion.

[Anonymous No.16909920]

Liberation really can mean different things to different people. if reality sucks so bad that you want to cease to exist away from it completely then i can see why Buddhism is how it is. at least in some views a wheel of both good and evil is worthless because it is an inferior tree of knowledge of Good and Evil. It's hellish because in reality imperfect Nature is the highest principal. The kind of Liberation I know is the Tree of Life. Some people's idea of Liberation is "well, now I know I'm fucked".

[Anonymous No.16909933]

>>16909878
For me to be moral the only thing I need is to be friends with the highest principal called wisdom and love. I would not bother to be moral if morality was a disadvantage to me. I'm quite free which is why my own religion would call me a heretic. In truth I have no religion because you kind of don't need that when you have everything.

[Anonymous No.16909955]

>>16909919
>>16909909
>>16909898
>>16909892
>>16909831
can you stop thinking like a nigger and be actuallu human?

[Anonymous No.16909958]

>>16909909
I look out for as much goodness as I can. that's why I'm working on seeing the unity of major religions if properly understood. I will go past them all in order to more clearly know reality. It's only a matter of rejecting what is inferior and accepting what is better. I do this because I care about myself.

[Anonymous No.16909991]

>>16909878
why are you even reading that stuff if you have race as ideal? you are not free minded yourself. you read spiritual men to concern with sensible nature.

i did not say one needs religion to be moral, i said your "it's all the same in the meaningless nature world" doesn't apply since humans have will while animals do not. you follow a darwinian religion without naming it.

[Anonymous No.16910016]

>>16909933
everything you have is of no value compared to God. why would you say one doesn't need religion when one has everything? you have good ideals at best, but even them are like nothing compared to God.

[Anonymous No.16910019]

>>16909518
>Adi Śaṅkara doesn't refute Madhyamaka, just writing it off without making any arguments
Why would he bother when they don't advance any arguments for their views and when their writings consist only of attacking the viewpoints of other schools? Madhyamaka excludes itself from serious participation in the philosophical debate by doing so. In any case Shankara dismisses as foolish the idea that illusion can arise without an existing substratum for it, which Nagarjuna never provides a solid answer for but just ignores despite it being a central hole in his scheme.
>Note that this strand differs from the earlier Vijñānavāda espoused by Vasubandhu and so forth in some ways.
Shankara and Gaudapada also criticized some aspects of the earlier Yogachara of Asanga and Vasubandhu in Gaudapada's Mandukya Karika, although it was natural that they would focus on attacking the latter Svantantra-Vijnanavada of Dinnaga etc since that overtook the earlier Asanga Vijnanavada, the eternal non-dual consciousness of Parinispanna taught by Asanga was too close to Upanishadic concepts and went against Buddhist anatta teachings so it was swiftly abandoned by Buddhists.
>For whatever reason, Madhyamaka did not receive much attention from other Indian religious groups
Maybe because they don't espouse any position in their writings
> there is also a Madhyamaka discussion of Vedānta found in Tarkajvālā
According to Andrew J. Nicholson in his book Unifying Hinduism, Bhaviveka didn't understand Gaudapada's pre-Shankara Advaita and he mistakenly attributes the position of Bhedabheda Vedanta (difference and non-difference) to Gaudapada, and then tries to use the contradictions between the tenets of Bhedebheda and Advaita as proof that Gaudapada's ideas are contradictory, when it was Bhaviveka who actually was confused about them. I found an English translation online once and Nicholson seemed to be right.

[Anonymous No.16910032]

threads like these prove how misguided these orientalists are. they are inclined to a false intelectuality and dead spirituality. just read this thread and notice all the examples of inversion.

it is all ego, this thread. one big pile of ego shit being thrown around

[Anonymous No.16910035]

>>16910016
I have everything because I have God. therefore I don't have to resort to inferior things like favoritism for my race or religion. Since I'm of God I have the ability to naturally understand what is best. So I can decide what reality ultimately is like, since I'm looking out for my own good. Pure chaos which you are proposing as the highest principle of reality doesn't believe in ideals. It Is by its nature uncaring and totally fucked.

[Anonymous No.16910042]

>>16910035
im not that anon, i'm against him.

you are wrong on putting his ideal of race on the same level of religion when religion is centered around God's revelation. you dismiss religion for a personal will. very dangerous.

[Anonymous No.16910060]

>>16910042
Nothing wrong with a little bit of Chaos. I have seen religions help some people but I've also seen them cause evil because they're caught up in the tree of knowledge of Good and Evil. You are right I cannot completely Castaway religion since I used it and a few religious people to help me on my way. But I've noticed that most religious people do not want to see the truth to a certain extent which makes me suspicious of how much they actually realize the truth. But religion certainly helps many people.

[Anonymous No.16910065]

this thread

[Anonymous No.16910071]

>>16910060
you are thinking of religion on a purely ethical level when there's much more to it. yes, the majority might not care, but they are not what constitutes a religion, they simply adhere to parts of it. the core of religion is revelation. but then again you are reducing religion based on the behavior of religious people.

forget about the religious people. it is all about believing in the resurrection of jesus or not, in the end.

[Anonymous No.16910096]

there are really only two possibilities:
1. your religions teaches that ultimate reality is good, in which case this implies a God
2. your religion teaches that ultimate reality is neutral or bad, in which case no one will follow your religion.

what does this tell us? that the fitra of man is aimed toward the good. and who made man? so God is real, and the highest law is love.

[Anonymous No.16910103]

>>16910096
>fitra
STFU you sandnigger

[Anonymous No.16910112]

>>16909560
That you are not even sure whether Nagarjuna accepted some form of reflexive cognition or not (despite him arguing against reflexive relations in the MMK), attests to Nagarjuna's failure to come up with a consistent explanation of how the mind and consciousness works.

[Anonymous No.16910113]

>>16910096
>2. your religion teaches that ultimate reality is neutral or bad, in which case no one will follow your religion.

NOOOO U CANT SAY THAT
REALITY CANT HURT MY FEELINOOOOO

[Anonymous No.16910151]

I'd love to read the Upanishads and learn sanskrit? Can someone recommend me some good translations and maybe resources to study sanskrit?

[Anonymous No.16910189]

>>16902709
only 0.0001% are not subhuman, so that's a good thing

[Anonymous No.16910452]

>>16901035
>Read Kant

[Anonymous No.16910467]

>>16896443
>you can tell this is a christian
Rent free

[Anonymous No.16910477]

>>16902439
It always amuses me how many great religions warned about corrupted women

[Anonymous No.16910478]

>>16910151

The Cambridge Introduction to Sanskrit is good I've heard

[Anonymous No.16910487]

>>16907290
>>16909586
>>16905523

[Anonymous No.16910588]

>>16908008
Ask me how I know all your knowledge of philosophy comes from r*ddit

[Anonymous No.16910598]

>>16908008