/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.18276252]

Buddhism has two forms: nihilism or crypto-Vedanta (Mahayana, Buddha-nature, etc.) Shankara is the only way.

[Anonymous No.18276263]

Fuck off already.

[Anonymous No.18276276]

>>18276252
>sitting around under trees doing nothing for decades
I'm thinking this religion is a mistake. At least in Christianity or Islam you just pray several times a day and you show devotion to God by trying to do his will in the world

If you want to sit around under trees I am not saying you shouldn't be allowed to but it seems sort of anti-social to promote tree-sitting to other people

[Anonymous No.18276332]

>>18276252
>Shankara is the only way.
Only if you want the full undiluted truth, if you are content with a diluted version of the truth that is transmitted through an alternative format but which can still let you arrive at spiritual fulfillment, then there are certain non-nihilist schools of Buddhism that can get you there (e.g. Jonang, Shingon etc).

>>18276276
Shankara (pbuh) didn’t remain under a tree his whole life but he traveled the length and breadth of India, establishing temples, refuting hylics and writing sublime commentaries.

> but it seems sort of anti-social to promote tree-sitting to other people
Sometimes this gets lost sight of in modern discussions but traditional Advaita is not meant for the masses, its specifically geared towards a small spiritual elite who are willing to abandon all ties and possessions in order to attain the highest goal that man can reach. For the common man Advaita says its ideal for them to continue living in the world with families and occupations while practicing karma-yoga and bhakti-yoga.

[Anonymous No.18276362]

>>18276332
Irrevocably based.

[Anonymous No.18276400]

>>18276252
>Shankara
Cryotobuddhist

[Anonymous No.18276472]

>>18276400


Buddhism was a reaction to Hinduism. Buddhists were ancient antifa members—i.e., last men—that resented the caste system, so they took Hinduism and tried to negate one of its essential tenets, the Self. This failed, obviously, but the arguments between Hindus and Buddhists helped grow India’s philosophical tradition, culminating in Shankara (pbuh) and leading to the irrevocable refutation of the school of sophistry known as (((Buddhism))).

[Anonymous No.18276558]

>>18276252
dare I say, based

[Anonymous No.18276574]

>>18276252
>Shankara is the only way.
Whoops! Lemme just correct that incoherence of yours right there.

[Anonymous No.18276584]

isnt this the guy who said that nothing exists and that the gods arent real? how is this guy not just an atheist and a nihilist then?

[Anonymous No.18276588]

lets settle this once and for all: knowledge or bhakti?

[Anonymous No.18276603]

Come back to us once you learn to the toilet, pajeet

[Anonymous No.18276645]

there are chantards who think they're Buddhists

[Anonymous No.18276650]

>>18276574
All of Ramanuja’s arguments against Advaita were answered and refuted by Advaitins. I long for the day when someone who has actually read all of Ramanuja will participate in a debate here about his doctrine, but it seems that people here just post him as a foil to Advaita but without actually having read him and without being able to argue in support of his positions. At this rate I’ll probably have read all of Ramanuja before any Ramanuja devotees start posting here.

>>18276584
>isnt this the guy who said that nothing exists and that the gods arent real?
No, he said that Brahman alone truly exists and that this world is an appearance of Brahman, this is mutually exclusive with saying nothing exists. With regard to the gods Shankara held that they are just as real as anything else in the world but that they too are ultimately appearances of Brahman and that ultimately Brahman alone exists as the Supreme Lord, the other gods are comparable to angels, they are created by Brahman.

[Anonymous No.18276682]

there are chantards that think they're chirstians

[Anonymous No.18276714]

>>18276650
>No, he said that Brahman alone truly exists and that this world is an appearance of Brahman, this is mutually exclusive with saying nothing exists.
Is it correct to say that no-thing exists, since Brahman is not a thing?

[Anonymous No.18276762]

>>18276714
that depends on how you define “thing”

Merriam-Webster gives the first definition as “an object or entity not precisely designated or capable of being designated”

Brahman is an entity designated by the name Brahman, so under that definition Brahman is a thing. If by thing you mean something which is subject to delimitations, which is limited, non-infinite, then Brahman is not a thing.

[Anonymous No.18276802]

>>18276762
>Brahman is an entity designated by the name Brahman, so under that definition Brahman is a thing.
I do believe that Brahman is real, but I do not think that any name or idea can designate It. To me it is beyond all names and ideas, being and non-being.

[Anonymous No.18276829]

>>18276588
The two goes together necessarily as Shankara that did some poems for gods.
I would suppose if you understand shankara, that you are fitted to jnana yoga to some extent and that you can't be in total bhaktic yoga.

[Anonymous No.18277327]

>>18276588
For Shankara, both lead to Brahman but knowledge is the direct path while bhakti is indirect, and bhakti leads to Brahman insofar as it contributes to and prepares one for the eventual dawning of knowledge, just like the performance of Vedic ritual also does this according to Shankara

[Anonymous No.18277363]

>>18276472
Buddhism wasn't anti-caste, it was a shift in emphasis from the ways of the ritualistic, priestly Brahmin to the warrior Kshatriya way of direct action in the quest for enlightenment.

[Anonymous No.18277442]

>>18276252
I like Theravada Buddhism the best and am learning and practicing. It feels nice and I don't want to live in society

[Anonymous No.18277451]

>>18277442
same bro, i just want to build a yurt in the woods and become an arhat in it

[Anonymous No.18277464]

>>18277363
No no, you misunderstand. He's not trying to make a point, he's just throwing as many buzzwords as he can together. Buddhism is "atheistic" and "nihilism" despite completely believing in deities and not being nihilism, but Advaita Vedanta, despite completely rejecting deities and believing that nothing exists, is not. This is because atheism and nihilism are bad, so by calling Buddhism these things, he is attempting to say that Buddhism is bad. He'll do the same thing by calling Mahayana "oriental", as if Advaita Vedanta somehow was not, thereby implying that Buddhism is bad because it is associated with China. This is of course silly because what actually sets the Mahayana tradition up to be what it is is Greek influence, meaning that by his own logic Mahayana Buddhism, by being Whiter, is thus more true than Advaita Vedanta.

[Anonymous No.18277470]

>>18277464
but what does that have to do with caste?

[Anonymous No.18277486]

>>18277470
Caste = Evola = Good, Buddhism = anti-caste = anti-Evola = Bad.

This is of course ridiculous because Buddhism is totally fine with whatever caste system a given society uses, in India it just demoted the Brahmins from their position of authority to mere spiritual technicians. It actually elevated the position of Priest in Japan and China from mere ritual technicians to community authorities, however. It's made even sillier by the fact that Shankara, through his rejection of the Vedas, actually rejects the caste system in a more fundamental way.

But again, the point isn't to actually make a point (these threads never are, which is in line with Shankara's typical incoherence), it's just to desperately make up for guenonfag's retroactive refutation by spewing out as many buzzwords as possible. As usual, his lack of understanding of Emptiness is his undoing.

[Anonymous No.18277559]

>>18277363
I see that as a false dichotomy propagated by Evola which obscures the more subtle factors at play. Contrasting rituals with action is silly since rituals are a type of action that is performed. The pre-Buddhist Upanishads already enjoined one to take up monasticism for enlightenment, and in the Pali Canon is described certain Brahmin monastics even in Buddha’s time. So insofar as Buddha taught that people should become monks to pursue enlightenment, that’s not very different as a path from what some Brahmins were already doing, and this path that Buddha taught was not really a path of action, since it involved renunciation, contemplation/introspection and the rejection of actions like the performance of rituals.

Evola justifies his focus on action mainly with references to tantra, but this action-based tantra does not resemble the paths of monasticism taught by Buddha and the Brahmins, which resemble each other more so than either resemble the action-focused path of tantra. The tantrists actually are in the same camp as Vedic ritualists insofar as both place a premium on actions, although for different reasons, the ritualists were concerned with material wealth, sons or entry into heaven, whereas the tantrists were concerned with spiritual enlightenment. Evola trying to cast original Buddhism as a path of action seems to be the result of him projecting his view of and attitude towards tantra onto original Buddhism which actually was moreso a path of renunciation/knowledge/introspection, in contrast to the action-based path of Vedic ritualists and tantrists.

[Anonymous No.18277581]

>>18277464
>>18277486
absolutely seething

>but Advaita Vedanta, despite completely rejecting deities and believing that nothing exists, is not.
completely wrong

> that Shankara, through his rejection of the Vedas, actually rejects the caste system in a more fundamental way.
completely wrong

[Anonymous No.18277588]

>>18277464
>>18277486
absolutely seething

>Advaita Vedanta, despite completely rejecting deities and believing that nothing exists
completely wrong

> that Shankara, through his rejection of the Vedas, actually rejects the caste system in a more fundamental way.
completely wrong