/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.18305935]

Should I start reading Shankara? I was originally interested in Buddhism because popular culture glorified the Buddha and said that his doctrine was “scientific,” but I am beginning to see how wrong I was to follow the opinion of the herd. Buddhism is filled with contradictions—more contradictions than perhaps even the Abrahamic religions—and it does not match up with experience. I can no longer wake up every day and tell myself that I do not exist when my eternal Self, brighter and more radiant than the sun, is always present and self-revealing. I just can’t do it. I am imploring the Advaitins of /lit/ to show me the true way!

[Anonymous No.18305955]

>>18305935
First Christians
Then Muslims
Now Hindus
/lit/ is not a proselytizing forum. Go somewhere else.

>B-but I'm just an innocent anon :3
No, be quiet. This is more than the tenth thread about Shankara with that OP image, and in all ten of them OP is a Hindu trying to either dunk on Buddhists or attract people to his faith. Go away.

[Anonymous No.18305989]

>>18305935
>I am imploring the Advaitins of /lit/ to show me the true way!
It sounds like you already know it brotha

[Anonymous No.18306094]

>>18305935
>Should I start reading Shankara?
Yes, and you should start with his 8 shorter Upanishad commentaries, which can be read here below, then read his other Upanishad commentaries after, and then his remaining works in any order.

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

Unless you’ve already studied Hindu philosophy, you’ll have to read a book first that explains all the Sanskrit terminology he uses or else you’ll probably struggle to understand him, this short book on Vedanta below by Rene Guenon should be enough if you read it first before Shankara (it was for me). Another book on Vedanta or Hindu philosophy is fine too, I'd also recommend "Advaita Tradition in Indian Philosophy" by Sharma or "Advaita Vedanta a Philosophical Reconstruction" by Deutsch.

https://sufipathoflove.files.wordpress.com/2019/04/1925-man-and-his-becoming-according-to-the-vedc3a2nta.pdf

>more contradictions than perhaps even the Abrahamic religions
Some people have viewed Advaita as not opposed to but as fundamentally in agreement with Christianity (Rene Guenon, Ananda Coomaraswamy, Frithjof Schuon, Bede Griffiths, Alphonse Levée etc). It's not my place to tell you what religion to follow, you should follow your heart in these matters, but you should know that studying Advaita and feeling compelled by it is not necessarily mutually exclusive with being a Christian. Some Christian metaphysicians have reached almost identical or highly similar conclusions to Advaita about God and reality despite not knowing about Indian writings.

[Anonymous No.18306110]

>>18305955
This.
Its obviously b8. And on que this cunt
>>18306094 shows up.
Idk how anyone can fall for these obviously indian shilling.

[ReleaseMeFromThisMask-LikeForm !!HraTM3Vvtb/ No.18306118]

>>18306094
here are many things we cannot know and we should not make unwarranted statements of certainty. I think it is foolish to claim, like Dan Brown did, that science (whatever that is) can only ever give us inescapable knowledge of the nature of reality. As Daniel Dennett said once, we have no way of knowing which laws of nature govern what we call reality, we can only make statements about what is interesting to study, and then build a theory about it.

[Anonymous No.18306160]

>>18305935
>>18306094
Stop giving yourself an excuse to post this, schizo

[Anonymous No.18306186]

>>18305935

Only read Shankara (pbuh) if you are ready for the final red-pill, it's not to be taken lightly. To quote Ananda Coomaraswamy in his essay "Vedanta and the Western Tradition", "A European can hardly be said to be adequately prepared for the study of the Vedanta unless he has acquired some knowledge and understanding of at least Plato, Philo, Hermes, Plotinus, the Gospels (especially John), Dionysius, and finally Eckhart".

Buddhisms insistence that you have no center of being that remains the same self-knowing intelligent presence throughout time amounts to nothing more than gaslighting. How many people have been led to never know the full glory of the spiritual life because they have been told they have to recognize their own non-existence so that they can attain an indefinable nothingness? As Ernst Johann Eitel noted about Buddhism in 1873, 'It is but natural that a religion which started with moral and intellectual bankruptcy should end in moral and intellectual suicide.'

[Anonymous No.18306223]

>>18306186
>To quote Ananda Coomaraswamy in his essay "Vedanta and the Western Tradition", "A European can hardly be said to be adequately prepared for the study of the Vedanta unless he has acquired some knowledge and understanding of at least Plato, Philo, Hermes, Plotinus, the Gospels (especially John), Dionysius, and finally Eckhart".
Holy fucking based

[ReleaseMeFromThisMask-LikeForm !!HraTM3Vvtb/ No.18306241]

>>18306186
Words and thoughts that should be all the more poignant in our age—'should now try to bring about a correction of that fault. The moment has come in the history of man when he must finally realize that he is no more than a "mere vibration of mind in matter."'

New hope for humanity?

In this sense, then, Buddhism remains a possibility of hope. It remains a possibility for the world's future if we can escape from the morass of the ideologies of the modern age.

[Anonymous No.18306460]

>>18305935
>>/lit/image/RdGGJAEeiIRpWMLIMk0brA
GUENONFAG IS BACK I REPEAT GUENONFAG IS BACK
>GUENONFAG IS BACK I REPEAT GUENONFAG IS BACK
GUENONFAG IS BACK I REPEAT GUENONFAG IS BACK
>GUENONFAG IS BACK I REPEAT GUENONFAG IS BACK
GUENONFAG IS BACK I REPEAT GUENONFAG IS BACK
>GUENONFAG IS BACK I REPEAT GUENONFAG IS BACK
GUENONFAG IS BACK I REPEAT GUENONFAG IS BACK
>GUENONFAG IS BACK I REPEAT GUENONFAG IS BACK
GUENONFAG IS BACK I REPEAT GUENONFAG IS BACK

[Anonymous No.18306479]

>>18305935
If you need to ask whether or not to read it, it's not for you.

[Anonymous No.18306515]

>>18306160
Don’t listen to this anon. We need to discuss Guenon and Eastern shit more because Trannies can’t refute

[Anonymous No.18306522]

>>18305935
>>18306460
Guenonchad, how should I get into Adi-chan? What Hindu /lit/ should I read first?

[Anonymous No.18306554]

>>18306515
Literally just the same guy writing softball-pitch dialogs to expound indo-thomism ad nauseam, for years.

[Anonymous No.18306570]

Guenonchad, once you take the shankara pill and inevitably return to Western Traditions, look into Guido de Giorgio

[Anonymous No.18306574]

Grow up: don't read Shankara, read Shakespeare.

[Anonymous No.18306584]

>>18306522
Read Bhagwad Geeta

[Anonymous No.18306601]

>>18306584
Already have
I’m gonna dive in tonight bc of this thread

[Anonymous No.18306673]

>>18306601
Good choice mate.

[Anonymous No.18306684]

>>18306186
BASED BASED BASED

[Anonymous No.18306695]

>>18305935
What Upanishads did Shri Shankara base his ideals upon?

[Anonymous No.18306774]

>>18305935
even the most devote hindus know that Shankara is crypto-madhyamikan

try again faggot

[Anonymous No.18306909]

>>18306110
>>18306094
>>18305935
lol

[Anonymous No.18306915]

CRYPTO BUDDHISTS BLOWN THE FUCK OUT

[Anonymous No.18307832]

>>18306695
He quotes from all of the primary or Mukhya Upanishads in his works, the later primary Upanishads he cites less often, whilst the earliest ones like the Chandogya and Brihadaranyaka are some of the ones that he cites the most often
>>18306570
>Georgio
He sounds interesting but I thought his main work was untranslated?
>>18306601
based, I hope you read some of his Upanishad commentaries first
>>18306774
cringe and cope

[Anonymous No.18307856]

Im reading the bhagavad gita as is and it says the bhagavad gita is all i need to read and follow to worship krishna. This all because of a thread like this so thank you hindu anon for spamming your shit for so long as im almost convinced to convert.

[Anonymous No.18307928]

>>18305935
debunked by picrel

[Anonymous No.18308107]

>>18307856
Based.

[Anonymous No.18308144]

>>18305935
Can you edit the pic to have devout pepes with shankara sitting on a seething wojack?

[Anonymous No.18308162]

>>18307928
>that ear hair and demonic smile
This man debunks himself really.

[Anonymous No.18308174]

>>18306554
>t. seething anti-foundationalist tranny

[Anonymous No.18308225]

>>18308174
But how did you know I was trans?

[Anonymous No.18308283]

>>18307928
>ISKCON debunking anything

[Anonymous No.18308391]

>>18308225
by intellectual intuition

[Anonymous No.18308412]

>>18305935
Read the quran instead.

[Anonymous No.18308534]

>>18306554
>indo-thomism
Holy based

[Anonymous No.18308578]

>>18306554
>>18308534
>”out of all of India’s ancient philosophies, it was only to be expected that it would be Indo-Thomism who would provide the most devastating critique of Buddhism and through that help bring about its decline from India”

[Anonymous No.18308768]

>Guenon"chad"

[Anonymous No.18308886]

>>18308578
Buddhism, living RENT FREE in Hindu philosophy for over two-thousand years

[Anonymous No.18308890]

>>18308768

[Anonymous No.18308901]

>>18308890
>meanwhile in reality

[Anonymous No.18308916]

>>18308886
This is true actually, according to the words of Al-Genonfagi
>Every major Hindu sect that writes a bhasya on the Brahma Sutras has a section inside their bhasya where they attempt to refute Buddhism.
The absolute STATE of Hindu dialectics.

[Anonymous No.18308951]

>>18306094
Cool. Thanks.

>>18306110
I don't mind personally. I am open to being shilled on something new.

[Anonymous No.18308955]

>>18308951
>something new.
Should we tell him?

[Anonymous No.18309039]

>>18305935
is Schopenhauer compatible with Advaita?

[Anonymous No.18309051]

>>18309039
Schopenhauer was a modernist who didn't even get buddhism so no.

[Anonymous No.18309057]

>>18308916
The Brahma Sutras provide refutations of aspects of all of the Hindu non-Vedantic darshanas as well as of all the non-Hindu philosophies, going through and refuting each one by one is just how they demonstrate the superiority of the Vedanta over other systems. Shankara attributed no special importance to Buddhism and he spends way more time in his Brahma Sutra bhasya attacking Samkhya, but his criticisms of Buddhism just happened to be so effective that they exposed it for the shamble of contradictions that it is. Buddhists philosophers also have texts where they try to go through and refute all of the other schools, its something thats typical of Indian philosophy whether Hindu, Buddhist, Jain etc, the Tibetans do the same

[Anonymous No.18309058]

>>18309051
I want to be part Modernist/part Traditionalist though

[Anonymous No.18309062]

>>18309039
Advaita Vedanta is based on a close reading of the Upanishads and Schopenhauer once wrote “In the whole world there is no study so beneficial and so elevating as that of the Upanishads. It has been the solace of my life -- it will be the solace of my death. "

[Anonymous No.18309070]

>>18309051
Parts of him are, but not really. I do think that Schopenhauer is good for priming the European mind for Advaita, though.

[Anonymous No.18309077]

>>18309070
Meant to reply to >>18309039

[Anonymous No.18309094]

>>18309058
>part Modernist/part Traditionalist
All the tradposters are modernists pretending to be priests or aristocrats

[Anonymous No.18309102]

>>18309094
i know im merchant caste gang
like steve jobs

[Anonymous No.18309103]

>>18309057
>his criticisms of Buddhism just happened to be so effective that they exposed it for the shamble of contradictions that it is
Behold the seething cryptobuddhist, his ressentiment unmatched in the east except by Christian missionaries

[Anonymous No.18309115]

why should I not just read Ramanujas commentaries?

[Anonymous No.18309200]

In the end Buddhism pretty much won.

It became widely practiced for centuries on end spawning multiple schools in various countries and states, the Buddha himself is a household name around the world to this day, is quoted and revered by intellectuals east and west ad nauseum, and has been the face of Eastern philosophy ever since his passing (inb4 Confucius).

Meanwhile Advaita is confined to a few Indian ghettos and only really thrives in obscure php forums on the internet. Not even Hindus look up to him, they'd rather worship Vishnu who happens to have been reborn as Buddha instead of Shankara (lol). I doubt we'll see Shankara become mainstream any time soon, he hasn't even taken off in his home continent.

[Anonymous No.18309215]

>>18309115
There's literally no reason to read Shankara period. If you want monism, then you won't find it in Shankara because he poses a weird form of radically nihilistic cosmological dualism, so there's no point in reading Shankara if you want monism. If you want mysticism, you won't find it in Shankara, as he is a radically anti-mystical atheist positing a hyper-rational doctrine (which, comically, is actually really incoherent and irrational). If you want dualism, you won't find it because of the whole Atman=Brahman thing.

[Anonymous No.18309216]

>>18309200
Is shankara a good entry point to Buddhism?

[Anonymous No.18309226]

>>18309216
Buddhism is a good entry point to Buddhism.

[Anonymous No.18309233]

>>18309226
I watched twin peaks recently and Tibetan Buddhism seems neat

[Anonymous No.18309248]

>>18309216
Yes, but remember not to take Shankara too seriously while you are reading him.

[Anonymous No.18309250]

>>18308916
Yeah, and in every Buddhist sutra (not even in the commentaries, but the sutras, that is their “holy” scriptures themselves) there is a seething attempt at refutation of the Self doctrine. Rent free!

[Anonymous No.18309259]

>>18309250
you tried...

[Anonymous No.18309266]

>>18305955
they just don't read. 4chan should have /phi/ or a /rel/ board and leave us alone while we speak about novels and poetry.

[Anonymous No.18309268]

>>18309216
Epicurus is a good entry point to Buddhism. Their doctrines are essentially identical.
>all is atoms and void
>soofering is bad
>soofering comes from attachment to atoms and void

[Anonymous No.18309269]

>>18309115
Most posters here are not saying that you shouldn’t or that you can’t read both. Ramanuja never wrote any Upanishad commentaries though, but his writings are steeped heavily in Upanishadic thought and reference them constantly, so it makes sense to begin with someone who wrote a comprehensive set of Upanishad commentaries; and also Ramanuja comes after Advaita chronologically and part of the context of his thought is responding to certain philosophical positions that were raised by Shankara.

[Anonymous No.18309276]

>>18309259
Cope

[Anonymous No.18309299]

>>18309266
I've been begging Hiromoot for years to create a /ph/ board for these hooligans, we don't need vidya boards or wrestling boards. I want old /lit/ back.

[Anonymous No.18309307]

>>18309268
Epicoorism is far from Buddhism, Pyrrhonism is the closest.

[Anonymous No.18309320]

>>18309268
Most Buddhists are radical idealists that think all is mind with no foundation whatsoever.

[Anonymous No.18309329]

>>18309102
>that pic
dont know how to feel about this. priest caste gang for myself

[Anonymous No.18309335]

>>18309250
>attempt
but its not an attempt, buddha succeed in 500bc.

[Anonymous No.18309347]

>>18309329
>>18309102
Jobs started with Hinduism but ended up going with the Zen path. He found a Master in California and studied under him for 17 years straight. He practiced 1 hour in the morning and 1 hour in the evening every day. Most of Apple's designs stem from Zen philosophy.
/lit/ wishes they read like pic related

[Anonymous No.18309377]

>>18309335
Yeah apparently it took a thousand years for Shankara to come along and reframe the atman=brahman using madhyamaka argumentation.

[Anonymous No.18309398]

>>18309102
>>18309329

[Anonymous No.18309409]

>>18309398
lmao, increase the res and I will save it

[Anonymous No.18309411]

Where can I find more about Indo-Thomism?

[Anonymous No.18309417]

>>18305935
This image strikes fear in the heart of the materialist nihilist and the Buddhist nihilist alike.

[Anonymous No.18309425]

>>18309398
Basado
>>18309409
No the decling resolution represents the descent of caste
>>18309411
It's the same thing you didn't like in sunday school in New Hampshire but with Sanskrit vocabulary

[Anonymous No.18309429]

>>18309417
It strikes my nostrils in any case.

[Anonymous No.18309433]

>>18309429
Heh...

[Anonymous No.18309439]

>Buddha didn’t believe in any god
>the Buddha preached tolerance and equality
>omg he is literally me!!1

[Anonymous No.18309445]

>>18309425
>the decling resolution represents the descent of caste

[Anonymous No.18309456]

>>18309439
>teaches aristocratic virtues to those willing to work to achieve them
>mistaken for a hippy by boomers
>mistaken for a social democrat by zoomers
Can angloids do anything right?

[Anonymous No.18309551]

>>18309269
>>18309269
I got my indians mixed up, I meant Radhakrishnan

[Anonymous No.18309563]

> dooode what if everything was illusion?
so i finished asain philosophy, what now?

[Anonymous No.18309615]

>>18309411
open the pdfs in this post >>18306094 and start reading
>>18309103
Unlike Buddhists, Advaitins are unable to seethe because they know that there is no existing consciousness except their own, the Lord’s, and so there is nobody else to seethe at. Only the followers of inferior pluralist doctrines like Buddhism are capable of seething, and seethe to no end they do.

>>18309200
> In the end Buddhism pretty much won.
Lol, no. It was refuted and vanquished from its homeland like how Plato vanquished the sophists.
>the Buddha himself is a household name around the world to this day,
Exactly, because its not a metaphysical doctrine which penetrates into the true nature of things, it instead is a shitty nihilism clad in moralistic clothing which appeals to the lowest common denominator of the masses.
>Meanwhile Advaita is confined to a few Indian ghettos and only really thrives in obscure php forums on the internet.
That’s not true, the 3 main branches of the Dashnami Sampradaya has branches and centers all across India and Advaita tends to dominate as the doctrine of choice among Hindu sannyasins who who take up monasticism.
>Not even Hindus look up to him,
Shankara is widely seen in India as a folk hero of Hinduism who helped bring about its revival

>>18309215
>There's literally no reason to read Shankara period.
Nonsense, he is a gifted Sanskrit writer, he has sublime verse and prose writing on mysticism and attaining union with God, and he is widely acknowledged as one of the most influential Hindu philosophers. And of course there is there curiosity factor in see what its like to read someone who refuted Buddhism
>If you want monism, then you won't find it in Shankara because he poses a weird form of radically nihilistic cosmological dualism, so there's no point in reading Shankara if you want monism.
Its not nihilism since it says there is an ultimate existence (unlike Buddhist nihilism where there is none), and its not atheist since Brahman is the transcendent God. Advaita Vedantic non-dualism is not monism or dualism either, it’s a false dichotomy to think everything has to be in one of those two camps, both of them are wrong and Advaita non-dualism is superior to both
>If you want mysticism, you won't find it in Shankara, as he is a radically anti-mystical atheist positing a hyper-rational doctrine (which, comically, is actually really incoherent and irrational).
No he is not, his writing is steeped in a heavy sense of religiousness and spirituality. As Chandradhar Sharma writes “ Śaṅkarācārya is undoubtedly one of the greatest philosophers of the world and a realised saint. He is gifted with extra-ordinary intelligence, a deeply penetrating mind, critical insight, logical reasoning, philosophical analysis, religious purity, sublimity of renunciation and profound spirituality. His literary excellence makes him shine as a writer of exemplary Sanskrit prose and soul-inspiring philosophico-religious verses.”

[Jesus No.18309617]

deaf faggots read about music

[Anonymous No.18309639]

>>18305935
>>18306094
Stop samefagging you daft schizo cunt.
Also Guénon was practically the only traditionalist to consider Buddhism a heresy within Hinduism and had to be convinced in the latter years of his life that he was wrong.
If you want to argue your case, at the very least have the honesty to start with an OP asserting your claims, instead of LARPing as some newbie who you can respond to. It's fucking pathetic.

[Anonymous No.18309642]

>>18309377
> and reframe the atman=brahman using madhyamaka argumentation.
Confirmed for never having read Shankara, he doesn’t use Madhyamaka argumentation but rejects it entrely because he is not a sophistic nihilistic anti-foundationalist like Nagarjuna is. As an NPC doctrine that is followed by people who have no inner conscious experience, Madhyamaka rejects the Atman so its arguments cannot be used to establish the Atman anyway.

[Anonymous No.18309652]

>>18309639
Seething

[Anonymous No.18309667]

>>18309551
In that case, I would say that 1) there is way more aesthetic and poetic value in reading the translated medieval commentaries that are written for people who take it very seriously, than in any modern work that implicitly sets itself aside from the material by taking an ‘academic’ stance. Also, Radhakrishnan was influenced by NeoVedanta/Modernism which the medieval writings aren’t.

[Anonymous No.18309668]

>>18306094
>Alphonse Levée
who?

>Some Christian metaphysicians have reached almost identical or highly similar conclusions to Advaita about God and reality despite not knowing about Indian writings.
if u have names

[Anonymous No.18309669]

>>18309615
Noooooo! I, a Buddhist, hath been vanquished by the light of Advaita and their Brahma-knowing followers, with their superior intellects, wit and bigger dicks! I can no longer can follow the nihilistic and effeminate ways of the Buddha! What am I to do??

[Anonymous No.18309670]

who here has learned sanskrit?

[Anonymous No.18309677]

>>18305935
You do realise that if your goal is to get people interested in Shankara and Advaita Vedanta, that you're not being the best ambassador right? If becoming Advaitin means becoming as insufferably pretentious and condescending as you are, I'd rather not.

[Anonymous No.18309697]

>>18309215
>because he poses a weird form of radically nihilistic cosmological dualism
>which, comically, is actually really incoherent and irrational
please elaborate

[Anonymous No.18309702]

>>18309411
https://www.jstor.org/stable/23582565

[Anonymous No.18309703]

>>18309669
Hath is 3rd person singular

[Anonymous No.18309707]

>>18309615
>Unlike Buddhists, Advaitins are unable to seethe because they know that there is no existing consciousness except their own, the Lord’s, and so there is nobody else to seethe at. Only the followers of inferior pluralist doctrines like Buddhism are capable of seething, and seethe to no end they do.
Entire post is shot through with priestly ressentiment of the noble path, and appeal to possession of a supramundane private immortality.

[Anonymous No.18309728]

>>18309707
Please expand your critique, sounds promising.

[Anonymous No.18309733]

>>18309668
>who?
He wrote “Christianity and the Doctrine of Non-Dualism” under the pseudonym “a monk of the west”
> if u have names
Eckart is an obvious choice that comes to mind, Eirugena also gets very close to Advaita Vedanta in some ways and Guenon notes this in his book on Vedanta. Some other Christian thinkers who write about the reconciliation of opposites like Clement of Alexandria do at times also.

[Anonymous No.18309750]

>>18309667
alright, I hear you

[Anonymous No.18309758]

>>18309733
>Eckart is an obvious choice that comes to mind
isn't he closer to buddhism, anon?

https://www.erudit.org/en/journals/theologi/2012-v20-n1-2-theologi0851/1018862ar/
>Master Eckhart takes the Plotinian ontology of nothingness to its extreme consequences. The latter becomes the face of God. In the famous Sermon LXXI (Pr. 71, DW III, p. 211, 5-7; Quint 1936), he affirms: "When he [St. Paul] rose from the earth with open eyes, he saw nothingness and nothingness was God" (we translate). The passage from the Acts of the Apostles (9:8), "Surrexit autem Saulus de terra apertisque oculis nihil videbat," is interpreted with unprecedented boldness. God is the nothingness from which being springs, he is the darkness from which seeing springs. Saint Paul, seeing nothing, has the vision of the origin. With this vision, all the others are annihilated: the world of creatures is reduced to the nothingness that it is and therefore it disappears. The nothingness of the origin is, at the same time, the origin of God, of what humans conceive as God. The latter is, more properly, the nothingness of things that are. He exists before being and is devoid of it, as he is devoid of any other predicate. The absolute must be beyond the Creator/created relation, beyond every relation and beyond every "why": âhne warumbe, without why. The absolute is without why, it expresses its own divinity naturally and without deliberation. Gottheit is nothingness, absolute negation of all distinctions. It is extreme transcendence. As such, the divine nothingness underlines its absolute "incomparability" with respect to each being.
>
>Symmetrical to the "great Nothingness" is the "infinite Nothingness", the creature. The creature in itself is a nothingness, the only being to which it is entitled being that received from God. The creature lives in a state of dependence, precariousness, contingency. Without God, without the being granted by him, he would annihilate himself at once. It exists only ex nihilo and ex Deo. It is crossed by a radical nullity. This nullity, which constitutes the essence of the world, must be abandoned: it is necessary to achieve a detachment (Abgeschiedenheit) from the creature in order to arrive at God. Paradoxically, one must abandon oneself and become pure nothingness. In other words, one must become the nothingness of nothingness: once the creature is abandoned, with the soul reduced to nothingness, one proceeds towards the "superessential" Nothingness

[Anonymous No.18309772]

>>18309733
>He wrote “Christianity and the Doctrine of Non-Dualism” under the pseudonym “a monk of the west”
you often talk to me about it, I really have to read it

[Anonymous No.18309782]

>>18305935
>filtered by non-self
absolutely crypto-hindu

[Anonymous No.18309784]

What do you guys think about Thelema? I remember Guenon or Evola saying it had its roots in tradition.

[Anonymous No.18309786]

>>18309733
>Christianity and the Doctrine of Non-Dualism
know where that can be found as a pdf? its not on z library or libgen

[Anonymous No.18309811]

>>18309784
Demonic/Jewish angloshit
Crowley was an MI6 agent and a poser
Anti tradition

[Anonymous No.18309826]

>>18309784
>I remember Guenon or Evola saying it had its roots in tradition.
rather the opposite. Guenon did not like Crowley at all and saw him more as a charlatan wizard. But after having studied Crowley's work quite a bit, he is in fact surprisingly close to Guénon and to traditional mystics in general. He teaches the same states, the same union. This poses a problem for traditionalism and its principles: how could a man as anti-traditional as Crowley, one might even say amoral, manage to build a system that allows one to reach the same states by just using the classical techniques? Tradition would then not play the crucial role that some people think it does. A good introduction to his metaphysics are these articles: https://iao131.com/2013/03/20/thelemic-mysticism-part-1-introduction/

[Anonymous No.18309831]

>>18309728
Vedanta as presented by guenonfag is a performative moralizing designed to grant him the appearance of authority over people he deems nihilists, materialists, or "Buddhists," by claiming access to a higher immortal Self which is equivalent with God. Because the nihilists, materialists, and "Buddhists" do not have this access to a based and redpilled state of permanent beyondness with theological characteristics, they are presented as weak crippled inverts. Of course, it is the claim of access to an eternal Being beyond reality which weakens, cripples, and inverts reality, particularly the reality of guenonfag, which is populated by Buddhists who cannot be evicted due to restrictions put in place by guenonfag's seething. They appear to live rent-free in their mastery, being wholly unperturbed. This is entirely unacceptable to the priestly mannerism, which requires there be an inaccessible and beyondified God-Self, in order to operate.

[Anonymous No.18309842]

>>18309831
that's all well and good, but the same can be said of historical buddhism, which reduces the experiences of hindus to arupajhanas. instead of moralizing, could you answer his arguments about consciousness?

[Anonymous No.18309872]

>>18309842
>which reduces the experiences of hindus to arupajhanas
about that:

https://politicallyincorrectdharma.blogspot.com/2021/05/the-formless-jhana-appendix-on-origin.html
>The sphere of infinite consciousness has an obvious counterpart among famous old Pali verses describing the Ultimate, namely the verses beginning, “Consciousness unmanifest, infinite, shining all around” (viññāṇaṁ anidassanaṁ, anantaṁ sabbatopabhaṁ) quoted at the end of the Kevaṭṭa Sutta (D.11).5 Somewhat ironically, the sutta itself is one of the previously mentioned propagandist texts, in which the Great Brahma, chief deity of the Brahmanistic pantheon and personification of Ultimate Reality, appears to backslide from Buddhism to some degree and is made a fool of; yet the quoted verses, which almost certainly attempt to describe Nirvana, and which are endorsed by the Buddha himself, represent an interpretation of The Highest Principle that more closely follows Brahmanism than orthodox Theravada, the Vedanta philosophy of Hinduism often describing Ultimate Reality, or Brahman, as infinite, formless consciousness, while the Theravadin Abhidhamma tradition asserts that consciousness and Nirvana are absolutely, completely different. Even the commentary is constrained to affirm that the verses refer to Nirvana, no doubt in part because the lines about the four elements gaining no foothold, “long and short, small and large,” and so forth are found elsewhere in the suttas as a more or less stereotyped pattern form poetically eulogizing the Highest State.6 It is quite possible that these controversial verses are older and more “primitive” than the Kevaṭṭa Sutta as a whole; yet even the sutta as it stands could hardly be called orthodox Theravada, considering the Buddha’s endorsement of Nirvana as infinite consciousness (even though, as mentioned elsewhere, an extra line was apparently added at the end of the verses as an attempt to rectify their orientation). It would seem that the verses (especially the first line and excepting the last one) represent an evolutionary dead end in Buddhist doctrine which arose during the explosive, virus-like mutation of early Buddhist philosophy, or may even have been original, but was outcompeted, for whatever reasons, by another interpretation of Nirvana which found its place in the settled, streamlined, standardized dogma of later centuries.7 Going with the hypothesis, then, in very early Buddhism there were a significant number of Buddhists who favored the idea of Nirvana as formless, infinite consciousness; but when, as the authoritative doctrine of proto-Theravada developed, the idea fell from grace, it was, by one means or another, converted into an advanced, formless sphere, possibly because it is easier to modify a belief than to abolish it altogether;

[Anonymous No.18309880]

>>18309784
Only Evola said he was legit IIRC, but that was before he knew he was a British spy and the entire thing was a sham. Evola later denounced him, as recorded in the Sufi of Rome.

[Anonymous No.18309887]

>>18309842
No doubt the presentation of the world of appearance as consciousness-only is highly similar to Buddhism, but don't tell him that. Where the Vedantists diverge is the insertion of their great Lord, again a very obvious priestly nihilism. What arguments need be added for or against theology at that point?

[Anonymous No.18309910]

>>18309887
is there an ultimate consciousness or not?

[Anonymous No.18309916]

>>18309697
Shankara postulates that everything is either made up of Nothing or of Brahman. 99.999...999% of reality is Nothing. Only a very tiny, small thing is actually made up of Brahman, and that is the luminous self-lightening opaque Atman that acts reflexively because it is opaque. The existence of this Atman=Brahman is completely identical to its non-existence as Shankara fully accepts the possibility of what amounts to a p-zombie (an entity that lacks consciousness but is on the outside indistinguishable from a conscious being). For example, cattle don't have an Atman=Brahman, and neither do some people, and life for these Atmanless people is identical to life for those with an Atman. Because of this, you can't even tell if you have an Atman or not.

This is part of the Buddha's critique of the entire idea of Atmans is that you end up having to admit that having an Atman is identical to not having one, so the entire idea of them is just absurd and you need to come up with alternative theories about how reality works that don't involve Atmans. After all, Nihilism, the rejection of things that exist, is one of the Wrong Views that the Buddha talks about. There's an irony that saying that Atmans exist requires you to say that things like trees and wheels don't. This sort of thing, alongside Shankara's rejection of the existence various Devas, and of religious activity like prayer, meditation, and sacrifice, alongside his rejection of Vedic and Upanishadic authority, is why Shankara never really got taken seriously by Hindus as his entire philosophy amounts to saying that nothing exists so you should just navel gaze and consoom until the void takes you.

Ironically, Shankara is the only Hindu thinker that Buddhism just absolutely slam dunks, as both the Monistic and Dualistic forms of Dualism move away from the crude theories that the Buddha was critiquing towards more sophisticated ones, seeing Buddhism as a challenge to be beaten rather than something to half-heartedly ape as Shankara does.

[Anonymous No.18309917]

>>18309831
>priestly mannerism
>where do I sign in for boodhism?
>smash the caste system!
>I’m a trans woman btw but gender is devoid of self nature

[Anonymous No.18309951]

>>18309916
>Shankara postulates that everything is either made up of Nothing or of Brahman. 99.999...999% of reality is Nothing.
what?
I thought that brahman was the material cause of the world (no ex nihilo)
>and that is the luminous self-lightening opaque Atman that acts reflexively because it is opaque.
wht is it opaque?
>For example, cattle don't have an Atman=Brahman, and neither do some people, and life for these Atmanless people is identical to life for those with an Atman. Because of this, you can't even tell if you have an Atman or not.
what? where did you read that?
>This is part of the Buddha's critique of the entire idea of Atmans is that you end up having to admit that having an Atman is identical to not having one
in what way do p-zombies demonstrate that consciousness amounts to its non-existence? at best, p-zombies show that the behavior of living beings does not depend on whether they are conscious or not, but there is a real difference between feeling the world, having an inner life, and being a dead machine that feels nothing and just reacts to inputs

[Anonymous No.18309952]

>there cannot be priests
>everyone must be equal to the bhooda

[Anonymous No.18309954]

>>18309917
>gender is devoid of self nature
But trannies don't believe this, they believe the exact opposite. It's precisely because they believe in Self Natures that they think they can even "be" trans.

And Buddhism didn't want to do away with the caste system (ironically, Shankara did, though), it just changed what a Brahman does and let other castes get in on actually doing meaningful religious activity.

[Anonymous No.18309959]

>>18309917
>all my metaphysical beliefs are downstream of my political impotencies
Nice self-description you got there. Since you don't even have the authority of priests anymore to back it, the reactionary and performative character of your theism is made all the more evident—believing in what does not exist on behalf of a power that does not exist.

[Anonymous No.18309960]

>>18309952
>we are Bhooda
>you will be assimilated
>resistance is futile

[Anonymous No.18309984]

>>18309959
>reactionary and performative

[Anonymous No.18309985]

Which sects of Buddhism are considered nihilistic?

[Anonymous No.18309987]

>>18309960
Wait wasn't everything Brahman? So you are an anti-non-dualist now just because you resent Buddhism being non-theology?

[Anonymous No.18309992]

>>18309984
>>>
> Anonymous 05/24/21(Mon)19:12:27 No.18309984▶
>File: E84B4809-F20D-46CF-B353-2(...).png (26 KB, 435x706)
>>>18309959
>>reactionary and performative

[Anonymous No.18309999]

>>18309984
>if you don't respond to every stupid stimuli you're a basedjak

[Anonymous No.18310008]

>>18309999
>>>
> Anonymous 05/24/21(Mon)19:14:10 No.18309999▶
>File: 1614214398413.jpg (57 KB, 655x573)
>>>18309984
>>if you don't respond to every stupid stimuli you're a basedjak

[Anonymous No.18310021]

>>18309916
omg there's so many things wrong lmao
is this really the level of anti-vedantic philosophy?

>>18309951
yeah he dont know the subject he's talkin about

[Anonymous No.18310034]

>>18309916
>Shankara postulates that everything is either made up of Nothing or of Brahman. 99.999...999% of reality is Nothing
>cattle don't have an Atman=Brahman,
>Atman that acts reflexively because it is opaque
wtf is this bs

[Anonymous No.18310038]

>>18309951
>I thought that brahman was the material cause of the world (no ex nihilo)
Right, and this gets into the problem that Shankara sets up, in that on the one hand he wants Brahman=Atman to be the source of all things, but at the same time he wants to set up a hard distinction between what is real (Atman=Brahman) and illusion (hands, feet, sights, sound, cattle, land, space, time, etc). The end result is that outside of the luminous self-lightening opaque Atman that acts reflexively because it is opaque Atman=Brahman, nothing else exists. In order to justify this, though, he also has to setup a scenario where Atman=Brahman doesn't actually do anything at all. The end result is that he admits that nothing exists and that his system being true is identical to his system being false.

This is why people point out the incoherence of Shankara's thought, because it's completely incoherent. We often make the mistake of assuming that just because someone thought something up in the past that it must be glorious wisdom, mistakenly forgetting that no, there were plenty of idiots in the past. Shankara is one of them.

[Anonymous No.18310041]

>>18309954
>And Buddhism didn't want to do away with the caste system (ironically, Shankara did, though)
wtf
dude are you here to talk nonsense? You have been displaying your crass ignorance for a while now

[Anonymous No.18310048]

>>18310034
advaita vedanta. you can see why hindus mock it.

[Anonymous No.18310054]

>>18309880
that is not what Evola said
Evola said Crowley was a clown and to be totally disregarded
he said something like
>why do people automatically trust an Englishman?

[Anonymous No.18310061]

>>18310038
>Right, and this gets into the problem that Shankara sets up, in that on the one hand he wants Brahman=Atman to be the source of all things, but at the same time he wants to set up a hard distinction between what is real (Atman=Brahman) and illusion (hands, feet, sights, sound, cattle, land, space, time, etc). The end result is that outside of the luminous self-lightening opaque Atman that acts reflexively because it is opaque Atman=Brahman, nothing else exists. In order to justify this, though, he also has to setup a scenario where Atman=Brahman doesn't actually do anything at all. The end result is that he admits that nothing exists and that his system being true is identical to his system being false.
but what are you talking about?
do you know maya?
what is this bullshit you've been pulling out of your ass for the last while? opaque atman? but wtf??

[Anonymous No.18310063]

>>18310038
>>18309916
Oh man you've done it now. Incoming guenonfag forty-paragraph essay seething about getting retroactively refuted once again in 3...2...1...

[Anonymous No.18310064]

>>18309987
Everything is ultimately Brahman, but Brahman forever emanates the castes through his power of maya, which are so many modes of universal manifestation at the human and individual levels and not something that has come about by means of a historical contingency and as something to be lamented and downplayed as per Buddhist cosmology and (social revolutionary) anthropology.

[Anonymous No.18310074]

>>18310048
show me where shankara says that cattle don't have atman please
of that reality is nothing
or that atman is opaque
like wtf are u talkin about

[Anonymous No.18310081]

>>18309335
No, Buddha failed to refuted the Upanishadic Atman

[Anonymous No.18310091]

"atman is opaque" bro what does that even means
wtf
u seems so confused
did you take the time to read an introduction to advaita before criticizing it?
it seems you don't even know maya
"the world is made of void bro"
like wtf

[Anonymous No.18310118]

>>18310064
Clarifying: Buddhist (proto-socialist and man-made) cosmology states that in the beginning humans were all equal and that the caste system came about historically because of a decline in dharma.

Divinely revealed (Vedic) cosmology, on the contrary, states that the castes were there from the beginning and reflect human nature and cosmic hierarchy, and only as a result of decline in dharma have the castes began to mingle.

[Anonymous No.18310125]

>>18310064
>Brahman forever emanates the castes through his power of maya, which are so many modes of universal manifestation at the human and individual levels and not something that has come about by means of a historical contingency
Extreme priestly cope. You'd give up the central karmic argument that you were righteous in the past and have earned your present just to spite people who deny theology?

[Anonymous No.18310137]

>>18310118
>because of a decline in dharma.
Oh and, unironically, material conditions, just like his future nihilistic-atheistic Marxist brethren.

[Anonymous No.18310140]

>opaque atman

[Anonymous No.18310148]

>>18310118
>Divinely revealed (Vedic) cosmology, on the contrary, states that the castes were there from the beginning and reflect human nature and cosmic hierarchy, and only as a result of decline in dharma have the castes began to mingle.
all traditional societies have tended to project their social institutions onto the universe
the Greeks too
this is also found in catholicism
it's reassuring to think that heaven is the extension of social hierarchies on earth
it makes the world a huge city

[Anonymous No.18310157]

>>18310148
>project their social institutions onto the universe
Typical materialist drivel. Buddhists everyone.

[Anonymous No.18310164]

>>18310140
>>>
> Anonymous 05/24/21(Mon)19:28:48 No.18310140▶
>File: 9BB5875E-0CA2-4C93-B712-9(...).png (50 KB, 645x973)
>>opaque atman

[Anonymous No.18310172]

>>18310091
>"atman is opaque" bro what does that even means
this
please explain?

[Anonymous No.18310175]

>will Buddhism finally end class society Mar-I mean Buddhist bros?

[Anonymous No.18310180]

>>18310148
This was corrected by Plato, who shows in The Republic that to emulate the heavens would require an inhuman social structure complete with breeding a caste of hierogamic game wardens, and that such a society would be fought against until destroyed.

[Anonymous No.18310196]

>>18310118
castes are a meme bro. You can't even deal with the existence of people who aren't born a poo. Besides that, your castes were enforced more by your white masters than by your own priests.

[Anonymous No.18310258]

>>18310196
First of all I’m not an Indian
Second
>resorting to anti-colonialist narratives
Holy shit I was memeing about Buddhism being Marxist but you really showed your hand didn’t you

[Anonymous No.18310279]

>>18310258
>white masters
>anti-colonialist
you're actually retarded
>I'm not a poo
imagine believing in a religion that straight up rejects you
what a spastic
pray you get born as a dalit in your next life, nerd

[Anonymous No.18310303]

>>18310196
>the British invented the caste system
>What is Purushasukta
>What is Manusmriti
Get educated then come back and try again

[Anonymous No.18310314]

>>18310303
>enforced = invented
poo scholars everyone

[Anonymous No.18310328]

>>18310279
>dalit
>nerd
You really want everyone to be equal to you don’t you? Lmao!

[Anonymous No.18310334]

>>18310279
>>white masters
>>anti-colonialist
>you're actually retarded

[Anonymous No.18310339]

>>18310314
>Indians didn’t enforce it
Go back to anti-colonial studies class, tranny

[Anonymous No.18310354]

>>18310328
>>18310334
>>18310339
bow down filthy dalit boys
your white master is here
know your place

[Anonymous No.18310356]

>>18309786
I wish I did
>>18309826
>one might even say amoral, manage to build a system that allows one to reach the same states by just using the classical techniques?
Where is the proof that it actually allows you to reach the same state?
>>18309887
>their great Lord, again a very obvious priestly nihilism.
accepting the existence of God and nihilism are mutually exclusive

[Anonymous No.18310398]

>>18310356
>accepting the existence of God and nihilism are mutually exclusive
Accepting the existence of God is nihilism

[Anonymous No.18310410]

>>18310356
>Where is the proof that it actually allows you to reach the same state?
the descriptions he and thelemites give of union with kether and above (the Godhead)
if it's not the same state it's even worse it means that everything is psychological

[Anonymous No.18310428]

>>18310410
>everything is psychological
Based vedantist/crypto-buddhist poster

[Anonymous No.18310433]

>>18309916
This whole post is wrong. For Shankara maya is not synonymous with nothingness but it’s the power of the Lord, Shankara makes it clear that maya is not nothingness. Nothingness has no appearance and no capacity or potential to appear as things like the world but maya does.
>Opaque
The Atman is not opaque
> The existence of this Atman=Brahman is completely identical to its non-existence
False because the Atman is consciousness and without it a being cannot be conscious
>as Shankara fully accepts the possibility of what amounts to a p-zombie (an entity that lacks consciousness but is on the outside indistinguishable from a conscious being). For example, cattle don't have an Atman=Brahman, and neither do some people,
Shankara never accepts p-zombies but he says all living froms from cows to hylics all share the same non-dual Atman
> This is part of the Buddha's critique of the entire idea of Atmans is that you end up having to admit that having an Atman is identical to not having one,
This is not true because its the difference between being sentient and insentient
> Shankara's rejection of the existence various Devas, and of religious activity like prayer, meditation, and sacrifice, alongside his rejection of Vedic and Upanishadic authority
This is just lies, he doesn’t reject any of these, especially not Vedic and Upanishadic authority

[Anonymous No.18310461]

>>18310433
Why do Buddhists have to literally make shit up instead of addressing the refutation of Buddhism expounded by Shankara?

[Anonymous No.18310463]

>>18309954
> Buddhism didn't want to do away with the caste system, ironically, Shankara did, though
No he didn’t you retard, in his Gita bhasya Shankara affirms that the caste system is beneficial for mankind and in his Brahma Sutra bhasya he says that Shudras are supposed to be prohibited from studying the Vedas

[Anonymous No.18310490]

>>18310021
>is this really the level of anti-vedantic philosophy
Yes, he is one seething Buddhist poster who gave up trying to argue against Advaita from the perspective of Buddhism (because all the Buddhist arguments suck, kek) and so now he copes by posting these long paragraphs full of strawmanning and inaccurate descriptions, he copies and pastes them in many threads

[Anonymous No.18310492]

>>18310461
shankara never refuted buddhism

[Anonymous No.18310556]

>>18310492
Coping Chang

[Anonymous No.18310578]

>>18309880
>>18310054
Sorry original anon is right. Didn’t read it correctly

[Anonymous No.18310580]

>>18310556
bro do you even know how to use a toilet?

[Anonymous No.18310640]

>>18310038
>Shankara sets up, in that on the one hand he wants Brahman=Atman to be the source of all things, but at the same time he wants to set up a hard distinction between what is real (Atman=Brahman) and illusion (hands, feet, sights, sound, cattle, land, space, time, etc).
This is not a problem but its consistent, that timeless formless Awareness is alone absolutely real, and It is what causes illusory or contingent phenomena to be perceived.
>The end result is that outside of the luminous self-lightening opaque Atman that acts reflexively
It neither acts not is It opaque, Its wielding of maya is timeless and effortless, wielding maya is not an action or a change but is Brahman’s very nature

>because it is opaque Atman=Brahman, nothing else exists.
It’s not opaque, things in maya are appearances of the Real, they are not qua appearances completely non-existent or else they wouldn’t even be seen
>In order to justify this, though, he also has to setup a scenario where Atman=Brahman doesn't actually do anything at all. The end result is that he admits that nothing exists and that his system being true is identical to his system being false.
Neither of those claims are true, He says that the Brahman alone absolutely exists, and he states that other things besides Brahman exist in a contingent and relative way. Truth and falsehood are not the same in Advaita, saying “I am the Self” has the opposite meaning of “I am not the Self”
> This is why people point out the incoherence of Shankara's thought, because it's completely incoherent.
You didnt identify a single contradiction in anything taught by Shankara but you just attributed to him positions which he never once taught.


>This is why people point out the incoherence of Shankara's thought, because it's completely incoherent. We often make the mistake of assuming that just because someone thought something up in the past that it must be glorious wisdom, mistakenly forgetting that no, there were plenty of idiots in the past. Shankara is one of them.

[Anonymous No.18310684]

>>18310398
Not according to the meaning of nihilism in the dictionary
>>18310410
>the descriptions he and thelemites give of union with kether and above (the Godhead)
Where does he write about this or can you post an example paragraph of his writing talking about it?

>if it's not the same state it's even worse it means that everything is psychological
Why would what Thelema says have any bearing upon the meaning of older eastern doctrines?

[Anonymous No.18310699]

>>18310461
Because Shankara’s arguments are irrefutable
>>18310492
Yes, he has dozens of pages refuting Buddhism in his Brahma Sutra Bhasya as well as sections where he does so in his other works, if you want I can post excerpts

[Anonymous No.18310707]

>>18310699
go ahead

[Anonymous No.18310730]

>>18310699
>Shankara’s arguments are irrefutable
The absolute state of priestly larpers

[Anonymous No.18310751]

>>18310707
from his Brahma Sutra Bhasya, part 1

[Anonymous No.18310759]

>>18310751
part 2

[Anonymous No.18310770]

>>18310759
from his Brihadaranyaka Upanishad bhasya

[Anonymous No.18310804]

>>18310751
>>18310759
>>18310770

[Anonymous No.18310814]

>>18310804

[Anonymous No.18311001]

>>18310684
>t on the one hand he wants Brahman=Atman to be the source of all things, but at the same time he wants to set up a hard distinction between what is real (Atm
https://iao131.com/2013/03/24/thelemic-mysticism-part-2-mysticism-in-theory/
https://iao131.com/2014/07/08/thelemic-mysticism-part-5-mysticism-in-practice-crossing-the-abyss-the-hermit/

[Anonymous No.18311024]

>>18310684
>Where does he write about this or can you post an example paragraph of his writing talking about it?
“The essential Attainment is the perfect annihilation of that personality which limits and oppresses his true self.”
–One Star in Sight

[Anonymous No.18311131]

ITT: seething buddh*ids, filled with impotent rage against the Sage of Sages, Shankaracharya (pbuh), and his worthy disciple Guenonfag (pbuh).

[Anonymous No.18311221]

>>18309102

[Anonymous No.18311234]

>>18310164
>>>
> Anonymous 05/24/21(Mon)19:31:31 No.18310164▶
>File: 1621663211345.jpg (222 KB, 785x1000)
>>>18310140
>>>>
>> Anonymous 05/24/21(Mon)19:28:48 No.18310140▶
>>File: 9BB5875E-0CA2-4C93-B712-9(...).png (50 KB, 645x973)
>>>opaque atman

[Anonymous No.18311445]

>>18311221
OH NONONO

[Anonymous No.18311539]

>>18309398
Really nice meme anon
Redpill me on Steve jobs, isn't apple shit ?

[Anonymous No.18311552]

>>18311001
Crowley lived many decades after the Indian texts talking about those things were translated in the west, so I would attribute that to him ripping random ideas from them to spice up his occultism, I don’t find it likely that he just come to those conclusions on his own independently without getting it from eastern sources. Plenty of other wackos and frauds have cited and talked about Hindu and Buddhist texts as well, I dont think that casts doubt on those older eastern doctrines.

[Anonymous No.18311605]

>>18305935
Made a thread without a lot of replies there :
>>18309410
A discussion about Hindu saccidânanda in regard to the christian Trinity.

>>18308534
>>18308578
Very cringe, read tthe thread quoted above.

[Anonymous No.18311655]

>>18311552
>I don’t find it likely that he just come to those conclusions on his own independently without getting it from eastern sources.
He was initiated directly into the mysteries by Aiwass (pbuh) during a mystical experience he had in Egypt with his wife.

[Anonymous No.18311704]

>>18311221
This card trumps all advaita posting

[Anonymous No.18312087]

>>18311704
Advaita can never be trumped, its opponents only make fools of themselves attempting to do so

[Anonymous No.18312146]

>>18312087
A Death-Blow to Śaṅkara's Non-Dualism? A Dualist Refutation
https://www.jstor.org/stable/20005350?seq=1
Shankara: A Hindu Revivalist or a Crypto-Buddhist?
https://scholarworks.gsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1003&context=rs_theses#:~:text=Shankara%20argues%20that%20Buddhism%20(Mahayana,of%20Vishnu%20(Hindu%20god).

[Anonymous No.18312195]

>>18312146
>A Death-Blow to Śaṅkara's Non-Dualism? A Dualist Refutation
>https://www.jstor.org/stable/20005350?seq=1
seems interesting, ty

[Anonymous No.18312220]

>>18312146
As I have explained to you directly multiple times before, Vadiraja’s argument against Advaita completely fails because Vadiraja gets Advaita totally wrong. In Vadiraja’s understanding the Jiva in Advaita is the same as Brahman, but Advaita doesn’t teach this at all, Advaita instead says that Atman-Brahman are the same thing, and that the jiva is an image of the Atman-Brahman and not identical with it, but Vadiraja’s argument only makes sense if the jiva is identical with Brahman, which Advaita says its not. So, Vadiraja failed to refute Advaita.

> Shankara: A Hindu Revivalist or a Crypto-Buddhist?
He concludes in that essay that Shankara was not a Buddhist but was in fact a Hindu revivalist, in any case calling something “crypto-x” is not a refutation of its ideas

[Anonymous No.18312370]

>>18312220
if there's the jiva and the atman then where is the non duality?

[Anonymous No.18312389]

>>18312370
Brahman gets in the atmangelion and pilots the jiva. Everything is actually Tang, the sacred color of the gurus.

[Anonymous No.18312397]

>>18311539
here's the quick rundown: >>18309347
he wanted to go Priestly Caste gang but this one mentor of his (not the zen master but a businessman) said he should focus on where Traditionalism and Technology meet and build a better world.

[Anonymous No.18312398]

>>18312370
The non-duality in Advaita refers to the identity of the Atman and the Brahman, not the jiva and anything else. The Jiva includes the gross body and subtle body and the mind, and so its not the unchanging pure consciousness of the Atman and so it cannot be identical with Brahman.

[Anonymous No.18312463]

>>18312398
is the jiva real or illusory answer this
the article is right. you have not refuted it and never will. to say that the jiva has the power to constrain forever the atman is absurd

[Anonymous No.18312491]

>>18312463
>is the jiva real or illusory answer this
Real in Advaita means “eternal and immutable”, unreal in Advaita means “something which is not eternal and immutable but which is nonetheless not pure non-existence”, the jiva is unreal in this sense.

>the article is right. you have not refuted it and never will.
No, it’s not, I already pointed out that Vadirajas central argument fails because he is confused about basic terminology in Advaita
>to say that the jiva has the power to constrain forever the atman is absurd
Advaita doesn’t teach this

[Anonymous No.18312559]

Hitler > Shankara

[Anonymous No.18312652]

>>18312559
both are based

[Anonymous No.18312737]

>>18312559
Why not both?

[Anonymous No.18313469]

>>18309398
based
people forget the Merchants were Aryan too

[Anonymous No.18313473]

>>18305935
Didn't we have a similar thread like this?

[Anonymous No.18313483]

>>18313473
We have had innumerable similar threads like this over months, if not years, courtesy of one Guenonfag

[Anonymous No.18313577]

>>18313473
In every manvantara the teachings of Vedanta must be taught anew. Human beings are a forgetful race, as Plato remarked.

[Anonymous No.18313923]

>>18309733
>He wrote “Christianity and the Doctrine of Non-Dualism” under the pseudonym “a monk of the west”
just bought the book
hope it's good

[Anonymous No.18314013]

>>18309733
https://epub.ub.uni-muenchen.de/4341/1/4341.pdf would love to have ur opinion on that
and
https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/1810/303491/Dissertation%20complete.pdf?sequence=1

[Anonymous No.18314022]

>>18309733

[Anonymous No.18314108]

who has read this?

[Anonymous No.18314307]

has he read Siege?

[Anonymous No.18314337]

Does anyone know if Bladee’s music is compatible with Advaita Vedanta?

[Anonymous No.18314645]

>>18309398
Merchant caste gang
You are on to something anon