Is this true?

[Anonymous No.18421510]

>In a brief historical look from the Vaisnava point of view, Advaita Vedanta, monism, is just an intermediate stage between Buddhism and monotheism. First there was Vedic monotheism and when it began degrading the Vedas were rejected by Gautama Buddha. Then Adi Sankara came to establish the authority of Vedas again, although he stressed an impersonal nature of Brahman, and after him several Vaisnava acaryas came with their variations of monotheism, Vaisnava Vedanta.

Is Advaita just an intermediate stage?

[Anonymous No.18421529]

>>18421510
Its all superstitious nonsense dreamt up by indian guys who smoked too much hashish.

[Anonymous No.18421930]

>>18421510
>Is Advaita just an intermediate stage?
No, arguably it's the result of a straight-forward reading of the Upanishads, this is what Advaitins would argue and I think they are correct. The later Vaishnavite Vedantins like Ramanuja, Madhava etc combine Upanishadic-Vedantic ideas with the Vaishnavite tantric agama body of texts known as the Pancaratra, whereas Shankara criticized certain things about Pancaratra doctrine in his Brahma Sutra Bhasya.

>The 11th-century Ramanuja, the influential Sri Vaishnavism scholar, was born in Pancharatra tradition, disagreed with Shankara, and developed a qualified monism doctrine which integrated ideas of Pancharatra movement and those of monistic ideas in the Vedas.[11][18] Ramanuja stated that the Vishnu of Pancharatra is identical to Vedanta's Brahman, where Purusha reflects the eternal soul that is Vishnu, and Prakriti the impermanent ever changing body of Vishnu.[11]

Not only does Ramanuja reject many ideas of Shankara, but he takes Vedanta in a different, devotional-oriented direction away from Shankara's Advaita, so it doesn't make sense to view Advaita as being an intermediate stage and Vaishnava-bhakti Vedanta as a further development of Advaita, a more accurate metaphor would be Advaita and Vishishtadvaita being two separate branches splitting off from the tree of the Vedic scripture.

>Advaita Vedanta, monism, is just an intermediate stage between Buddhism and monotheism
This sentence is wrong because Advaita Vedanta is a form of monotheism. Both Advaita and Vishishtadvaita worship one Supreme Lord and they both say that other deities are contingent upon this one Supreme Being.

[Anonymous No.18421940]

>>18421510
I see Adi Shankaracharya (pbuh), I bump.

[Anonymous No.18423386]

>>18421510
>First there was Vedic monotheism
imagine being this retarded

[Anonymous No.18423394]

>>18421930
Quality post

[Anonymous No.18423679]

>>18421529
>superstitious nonsense
this is what r/atheism does to your brain

[Anonymous No.18425093]

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

[Anonymous No.18425104]

>>18421510
>monotheism
nothing more disgusting

[Anonymous No.18425641]

>>18421510
Of course. Shankara was a mediocre exegete and his followers are just dogmatic DMT tweakers.

[Anonymous No.18425649]

>>18421930
>so it doesn't make sense to view Advaita as being an intermediate stage and Vaishnava-bhakti Vedanta as a further development of Advaita, a more accurate metaphor would be Advaita and Vishishtadvaita being two separate branches splitting off from the tree of the Vedic scripture.

It does make sense and you're an idiot, guenonfag. You always lose your arguments but think autistically getting the last word in means you've won and that people will believe you.

A good vid more people need to watch.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vIk0ZV1L_u4

[Anonymous No.18425710]

>>18425641
>Shankara was a mediocre exeget-

How can anyone who has enjoyed the felicities offered by the heavenly creeper of Sankara's commentaries, abounding in the tender leaves and flowers of literary beauty and philosophic wisdom, entertain, even through infatuation, an attraction for other teachers' apology of commentaries, which, with their hollow contents and laboured styles, are a blot on Saraswati, the Goddess of learning? Literary men in general have their minds rendered weak by the numerous shafts of sensual passions inflicted on them by the hunter Cupid. Their writings are, therefore, useless in releasing man from his bondage, or in giving, any true and ennobling enjoyment. What wonder is there if such writings do not command the respect of those whose minds have been purified by the non-dualistic outlook advocated by the Acharya's writings? If one tries to produce a work in imitation of the Acharya's writings, which, by their clarity, sweetness and power, surpass a river of nectar, what one achieves will only be an artificial channel with a lean flow, utterly insignificant before the current of the mighty Ganga issuing from the matted locks of Siva. By his hymn of Kanaka-Lakshmi he brought prosperity to a poor family; by his hymn called Soundaryalahari he has revealed the unique glory of the Divine mother; by his Siva-bhujanga he has produced a cure for the obsession of fear in men. How wonderful and varied are his works!

They present a veritable Devaloka, the heaven of Indra. For, the flow of words in them is a rain of flowers from celestial trees; the grandeur of their meanings is the glow of rubies worn by celestial women in their hair; and the abundance of implied wisdom they contain is like the limitless delicious milk in the udder of the heavenly Kamadhenu. His works are, indeed, like a bunch of luscious banana fruits - their meanings, the hunger-appeasing capacity; their implications, the attractive flavour; and their sweetness of diction, the delicious juice. Even a single fruit of a verse from that bunch of his writings is enough to give the highest delight and satisfaction to wise men and spiritual aspirants. Possessed, they are, of matchless beauty of form like a bouquet of jasmine flowers, pregnant with meanings like a newly blossomed lotus full of nectar, and carrying the aroma of sanctity like the fragrance of the flowers of the celestial tree, his works will provide thrills of deep joy and spiritual inspiration to all who approach it.

[Anonymous No.18425716]

>>18425710
It is said that, animated by jealousy and ill-win on hearing such glorious praise of Sankara's commentary, some followers of Gautama's Nyaya philosophy inhabiting some region of the Ganga's banks, once went to Sankara for a controversy. They held the view that inference is the only way to knowledge. Their confrontation with the Acharya was excelled in stupidity only by the attack of moths against fire. Such controversies and attacks of critics only helped to highlight the excellence of his commentaries. For, see how the lustre of gold is only enhanced when subjected to heating and hammering. The moon of commentaries that rose from the milk-ocean of the Acharya's genius rained its nectarine light on all the world of learning. The lunar light it shed, while satisfying the Chakoras of the wise, drove away the darkness of sophistry from among scholars. The Amrita of his commentaries, churned out of the eternal milk-ocean of Vedic wisdom, saved spiritual aspirants from the senility and old age of ignorance, and conferred on them the immortality of divine knowledge.

The light shed by the sun of his commentaries caused the blossoming of the heart-lotus of good men, the removal of the darkness of ignorance, and· the expulsion of the owls of sceptical critics. The Amrita of Sankara's commentaries, born of the milk-ocean of the Vedas, on being churned with the Mandara mountain of logical thinking, confers immortality on wise men who consume it even in this life. The holy Ganga issued only from the feet of Vishnu, whereas these commentaries flowed from the mouth of Siva. The former only drowns the earth and its inhabitants in its floods, while the latter saves men drowning in the flood of Samsara. The sage Vyasa offered to the world a collection of golden beads of Vedic wisdom strung together with his Sutras (meaning 'string' as also 'aphorisms') into a necklace. But scholars could not go in for it, as its Artha (signifying 'value' as also 'meaning') was beyond their capacity. But today these have been brought within their reach through the liberality shown by the Acharya in writing his commentaries on them. The sage Vyasa, too, must be happy to see the necklace of the Sutras made by him on the necks of so many scholars. Wonderful is the benevolence of this great teacher!

[Anonymous No.18425724]

>>18425104
Hindu monotheism is infinitely better than Jewish desert monotheism. Read the Bhagavad Gita

[Anonymous No.18425725]

>>18425716
His commentaries are like a garland of jasmine decorating the coiffured tresses of the damsel of Vedas. They are like a fortune, a treasure, come into the possession of the Goddess of Learning. They are the fruits of the long prayers and austerities of sages. They are the manifestation of the indescribable sweetness and sanctifying quality of Vyasa's great work. All Jivas who have taken their last birth will certainly seek them. The great sage's work is like the mighty Mandara mountain in churning the ocean of Vedas and bringing out the nectar of wisdom contained in them, to the great edification of all wise men. By casting around the brilliance of his dialectical thought, they have not only scattered the accumulated darkness of perverse doctrines for travellers trudging along the high ways of spiritual seeking, but also revealed that clear path for all good men to traverse. The doctrine of Brahmavidya that Sankara preached, which confers salvation through the elimination of all duality, reigns victorious over the country-from Rameswaram in the South, where Rama built his bridge dividing the seas, to the northern boundaries marked by the Himlalaya mountains which bowed down with its peaks to Siva at the time of the conquest of the Tripuras; and from the Eastern Mountains where the sun rises, to those of the West where he sets.

[Anonymous No.18425730]

>>18421930
>arguably it's the result of a straight-forward reading of the Upanishads, this is what Advaitins would argue
When you have to read into the Upanishads two levels of truth you’re doing it wrong

[Anonymous No.18425740]

>>18425649
>It does make sense
How does it make sense when Vishishtadvaita and other Vaishnava Vedantins reject so many premises of Advaita? Please, elaborate because I'm just not seeing it.
>You always lose your arguments
Do you have an example?

[Anonymous No.18425744]

>Fuse into the Brahman Loo, You are Poo.

Wow, Shankara really was a genius! I better do drugs and shill him online 24/7.

[Anonymous No.18425843]

>>18425744
seething

[Anonymous No.18425906]

>>18425710
>>18425716
Now I KNOW Advaita Vedanta was influenced by Mahayana. This reads exactly like the dedication portion of some sutra or the hagiography of the author.

[Anonymous No.18425928]

Advaita and Buddhism are the two religions I will never, ever look into because of how utterly obnoxious the people shilling them on this board are.

[Anonymous No.18425980]

Vishishtadvaita is the apex of Vedantic thought. Aum namo Narayanaya

[Anonymous No.18425987]

>>18425928
Based.

[Anonymous No.18426002]

>>18425730
>When you have to read into the Upanishads two levels of truth you’re doing it wrong
The conditional/relative world is not a second truth but it's still falsity because it's a deceptive appearance of the truth/reality, of which there is only one. The distinction between higher supreme and lower, non-supreme knowledge is explicitly made in the Upanishads themselves, such as in Mundaka Upanishad verse 1.1.4.

But moreover, all of the Upanishads refer to our normal mundane way of understanding things in terms of multiplicity as a delusion arising out of ignorance/maya, and they inculcate the reader to know and understand the true, higher, undivided reality. Witness for instance, such texts as

The Lord on account of Maya is perceived as manifold
- Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 2.5.19:
O Somya, it is like this: By knowing a single lump of earth you know all objects made of earth. All changes are mere words, in name only. But earth is the reality.
- Chandogya Upanishad 6.1.4.
Through the mind alone is Brahman to be realized. There is in It no diversity. He goes from death to death who sees in It, as it were, diversity.’
- Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 4.4.19.
What is here, the same is there and what is there, the same is here. He goes from death to death who sees any difference here.
- Katha Upanishad 2.1.10.
Through constant meditation on Him, by union with Him, by the knowledge of identity with Him, one attains, in the end, cessation of the illusion of phenomena.
- Svetasvatara Upanishad 1.10.

The above Upanishad verses collectively state that change, difference and diversity do not belong to the reality that is Brahman, and that by knowing Brahman one attains the end of the illusion of phenomena.

How else can these ideas makes sense without the distinction between appearance and reality which Advaita teaches? The very notion of falsehood and illusion are meaningless without those terms being contrasted with that which is their contrary, one cannot say that change, phenomena, difference, multiplicity are unreal without it automatically implying that aside from the relative appearance of these things there is an existing reality/truth which is devoid of these. The distinction between absolute and non-absolute knowledge taught by Advaita is nothing more than the distinction between appearances and reality, which is found repeated in every single primary Upanishad.

You cannot say that "A" is a false appearance of the reality "B" as the Upanishads do without that necessitating the division of things into the truly-existent B or Brahman, and on the other hand the relative appearance of B in the form of A, as Advaita does.

[Anonymous No.18426042]

>>18426002
>all this pilpul to justify your un-Vedic doctrines
Mayavadins are cringe

[Anonymous No.18426049]

>>18426002
Wall of text cope from guenonfag once again. It's amazing how just reading the primary texts refutes guenon, shankara and all the other perennialists.

[Anonymous No.18426052]

>>18425906
>This reads exactly like the dedication portion of some sutra or the hagiography of the author.
That just confirms you are a brainlet who has read little to no Indian literature aside from his nihilistic buddhist writings. That style of heavy-handed eulogistic praise in found in the writings of almost every Hindu and non-Hindu school of Indian thought, Vaishnavas write about Vaishnava gurus the same way, Shaivas write about Shaiva gurus the same way, Jainas write about revered Jain thinkers the same way. It can be traced to Vedic poetry and its praising of the Gods with poetic eulogies and many fanciful descriptions, which far predate Buddhism.

[Anonymous No.18426061]

>>18426052
Ah if that were the only evidence, mayavadin, if only!

[Anonymous No.18426069]

Krishna is the the Supreme Personality of Godhead

[Anonymous No.18426082]

>>18426069
Based bhakta

[Anonymous No.18426085]

>>18426042
>un-Vedic doctrine
The Upanishads are a part of the Vedas and they mention maya, ignorance, illusion etc repeatedly, as do most of the Smriti literature, so it's not a non-Vedic doctrine.

If the Pancharatra doctrines that Ramanuja and other Vaishnavas blended with Vedic teachings were actually Vedic, the Pancharatra texts would have been a part of the Vedic scripture like the Upanishads are instead of being a totally different body of texts.

>>18426049
> It's amazing how just reading the primary texts refutes guenon, shankara
I just cited primary texts that prove my point

[Anonymous No.18426091]

>>18426061
The other "evidence" is just as incorrect

[Anonymous No.18426095]

>>18426085
The Upanishads don’t support advaita, keep coping. You can keep crying about muh pancharatra but it won’t change that fact.

[Anonymous No.18426110]

>>18426091
You really believe after centuries of brahmin breaking there was no influence from Buddhism whatsoever? Absolute and relative cope.

[Anonymous No.18426114]

>>18426085
>they mention maya, ignorance, illusion etc repeatedly
Lel this fag thinks only advaita talks about this

[Anonymous No.18426210]

>>18426095
>The Upanishads don’t support advaita, keep coping.
Yes they do, Shankara explains why and how quite clearly in his commentaries, while Ramanuja never even wrote any Upanishad commentaries! You haven't provided any arguments for your position, why should anyone take what you say seriously?

>>18426110
>brahmin breaking
Buddhism was driven from India after it was refuted by primarily Brahmins like Shankara and Kumarila Bhatta, and also by later Shaivas. The Buddhists only replied to Kumarila but lacked the intelligence to formulate written responses to the arguments of Shankara and the Shaivists. Buddhists were perceived by Hindus all throughout history as nihilist soul-denying fools, so why would any of them want to adopt anything from Buddhism? And if you really believe there was influence, why just not state what you think that influence was so we can evaluate concrete claims instead of making vague inferences on the basis of a historical proximity?

>>18426114
I'm aware that the other schools do but they seem to having unconvincing arguments that try to downplay what the Upanishads say about those things, e.g. "when the Chandogya Upanishad states multiple times that change is unreal and that the unchanging basis alone is true, they uhhh.... didn't actually mean what they said and Brahman still changes"

[Anonymous No.18426304]

>>18426210
Buddhism lives rent-free in Hinduism. You failed mayavadin, and your nihilistic doctrines are more harmful to the Vedas than any baudha.

[Anonymous No.18426320]

>”O unconquerable one! You have been conquered by virtuous ones who have conquered their atmans and are impartial in their intelligence. And you have conquered those who worship you, desiring nothing for themselves. Because of your great compassion, you bestow yourself. O illustrious one! Indeed, the creation, preservation and destruction of the universe and everything else is a result of your powers. The various creators of the universe are portions of your portions. In vain, they “think of themselves as distinct and seek to rival each other. Though you have no beginning, middle and end, you exist in the beginning, middle and end of everything, from a paramanu to the greatest of the great. You are permanent and exist in the beginning, middle and end of all existences. The cosmic egg is covered by seven sheaths, the earth and the others each sheath ten times the size of the preceding sheath. Crores and crores of such eggs appear like atoms on your head. Therefore, you are Ananta (the Infinite). Men who thirst above material objects are animals. They worship divinities other than you. O lord! However, with the destruction of those divinities, those benedictions are also destroyed, just as royal lineages disappear. Your atman is full of knowledge and you are not affected by the gunas. O supreme one! Even if you are worshipped because the intelligence craves for the satisfaction of desires, this becomes like fried seeds.You do not possess the gunas, nor the nets of duality.”

Absolute nectar. Advaitins could never write words so full of SOUL

[Anonymous No.18426337]

>>18425649
>Dharma nation

[Anonymous No.18426344]

>>18426337
He’s an extremely godly man.

[Anonymous No.18426354]

>>18426304
>Buddhism lives rent-free in Hinduism.
No, Buddhism was thoroughly refuted along with other false doctrines in the first millennium AD, and then nobody in India paid much attention to it anymore but instead concerned themselves with dialectical discussion with other Hindu schools.
>You failed mayavadin, and your nihilistic doctrines are more harmful to the Vedas than any baudha.
Maya isn't nihilism since it's not saying that nothing whatsoever exists, it means that only Brahman or God truly exists and that the meaning of our life here on earth is to work on being reunited with Him. Using mayavadin as a pejorative to mark someone as anti-Vedic makes no sense when the word maya itself comes from the Vedas and Upanishads.

[Anonymous No.18426399]

>>18426337
His analysis of vedantic material is excellent, his opiions on everything else outside of that are shit

[Anonymous No.18426406]

>>18426354
You’re a mayavadin because you ignore the extremely clear statements in the Upanishads and other scriptures such as the Bhagavad Gita which deny the personality of the Supreme Person for your impersonal oneness.

[Anonymous No.18426410]

>>18426069
Extremely Based Krishna Chad

[Anonymous No.18426418]

>>18426344
>"Alex Jones is one of the most intelligent people I ever met"
Yeah, that's an actual qoute.
>Creates and hands out mantras of Odin and Thor
>Overly theatrical
>The golden age is just around the corner
He's pretty knowledgeable in regards of Vaishnava philosphy though, I'll give him that. But I'd advice anyone interested in vedanta to actually read the scriptures instead of watching his videos.

[Anonymous No.18426440]

>>18426354
>No, Buddhism was thoroughly refuted along with other false doctrines in the first millennium AD, and then nobody in India paid much attention to it anymore but instead concerned themselves with dialectical discussion with other Hindu schools.
Weird so what was the point of Shankara defeating Buddhism hundreds of years later as you incessantly claim? I guess that proves my point: RENT FREE.

[Anonymous No.18426442]

>>18426418
>Creates and hands out mantras of Odin and Thor
These were revealed to him.
>The golden age is just around the corner
Lord Chaitanya predicted this centuries ago. He didn’t make it up.

[Anonymous No.18426453]

>Hare Krishnas bashing on Advaitin virgins
BASED

[Anonymous No.18426458]

>>18426337
Agreed, Dharma Nation is moronic Italian nerd larping as an Indian man

[Anonymous No.18426487]

I love Krishna so much bros

[Anonymous No.18426504]

>>18426487
*breaks the Krishna buck*

[Anonymous No.18426516]

>>18426442
>These were revealed to him.
So what? He is not an authority on norse paganism, it's all a pathetic attempt to broaden his audience and monetary gains. He is/was obviously catering to the alt-right, which is filled with lost souls clinging to a dead tradition.

>Lord Chaitanya predicted this centuries ago.
Doesn't matter, he made videos 10 years ago claiming that the golden age were just around the corner. It all culminated with Trump, the golden age were just about to start. Then he stopped making videos on the golden age for some reason.

[Anonymous No.18426525]

>>18426487
Hare Krishna. Blessed post

[Anonymous No.18426529]

>>18426442
"I believe that 2016 is going to be a year that is absolutely pivotal in bringing about the new Golden Age that God’s true devotees have been praying to see for decades."

[Anonymous No.18426541]

>>18426406
>you ignore the extremely clear statements in the Upanishads
cite them
>other scriptures such as the Bhagavad Gita
they derive their validity from the Sruti, the Sruti overrules all Smriti in matters of exegesis, the Smriti are non-revealed while the Sruti is revealed.
>>18426440
>Weird so what was the point of Shankara defeating Buddhism hundreds of years later as you incessantly claim?
it wasn’t hundreds of years later but Shankara was only about a generation or so removed from Kumarila Bhatta, as he debated his direct disciple. In any case these things take time as India is a big place, you could say it was a “process” which should resonate with you buddhists because of your relativist attempts to reduce everything to dependent processes.
>>18426442
>>Creates and hands out mantras of Odin and Thor
>These were revealed to him.
LOL

[Anonymous No.18426542]

>>18426529
Trump was pivotal in a sense. He was right

[Anonymous No.18426576]

>>18426542
Elaborate. How did Trump's presidency in any way mark a beginning of the Golden Age™?

[Anonymous No.18426580]

>>18426541
>cite them
Go read any Upanishad. Narayana Upanishad, Katha Upanishad Shvetashvatara Upanishad, Mundaka Upanishad, etc — all have extremely clear theistic language

[Anonymous No.18426606]

>>18426576
Trump energized people against globohomo in the United States and around the world. Ultimately, however, he was just another agent of Zion. Ever since 2015-2016, people have become more and more awake. The change is already happening. He might not mean it like that though. Trump was certainly not a savior. He was a jewish stooge and a conman who swindled Americans

[Anonymous No.18426643]

>>18426606
Woah so this is the predictive power of indo-thomism. Very cool /pol/

[Anonymous No.18426676]

>>18426606
>Trump energized people against globohomo
What has that to do with the golden age? Most people arguing against globalization are just reactionary simpletons.
Trump's presidency probably sow more discord and fraction in the American society than any president have done before.
Why can't you just admit that he was wrong? Trump sucked, he was a dissapointment and didn't bring any valid, moral or spiritual changes to the world.
>The change is already happening.
In what context? Everything change's all the time, but I can't see that we are moving in any right direction as of now.

[Anonymous No.18426687]

>>18426643
>*predictive power of an alt-right vaishnav larper

[Anonymous No.18426697]

>>18426676
Globohomo is extremely adharmic. Materialism, atheism and liberalism are its fruits.

[Anonymous No.18426720]

>>18426643
>>18426687
These people aren’t from /pol/. There is a board called /fascist/ on a site called sixteen chan (typing it gets you a ban) chock full of Vaishnavas, Esoteric Hitlerists and people who want to exterminate Abrahamists

[Anonymous No.18426738]

>>18426697
Maybe try to answer/refute my points instead of posting one-liners? Globalization is cancer, yes. But how does that relate to Trumps presidency and the golden age?
The whole point about the golden age is that there will be a large amount of Bhaktas devoted to Hari during this period. Have you seen a mass pull toward Vaishnavism in the west, lately? And if you have, would you contribute it to Trump's presidency?

[Anonymous No.18426757]

>>18426720
They sound as based as fuck

[Anonymous No.18426773]

>>18426720
>save the west
>get rid of abrahamists
Totally incoherent. That's like 95% of the population. Just move to India at that point.

[Anonymous No.18426807]

>>18426406
Not him but the Gita and Upanishads follow different approaches to Vedanta. The Upanishads, especially the early ones are highly Advaitin in nature, Gita is a hardcore Vaishnava text, which basically fuses Upanishadic thought with the theory of elements from Samkhya and Vaishnava tantrism.

[Anonymous No.18426841]

>>18426720
They are probably behind the Devi spams recently

[Anonymous No.18426854]

>>18421529
>Its all superstitious nonsense dreamt up by indian guys who smoked too much hashish.

Advaita Vedanta is probably the best known of all Vedanta schools of Hinduism, the others being Dvaita and Vishishtadvaita. Nondual Vedanta is considered the pearl of Indian philosophy and it has influenced virtually all schools of thought

[Anonymous No.18426962]

>>18426580
>Go read any Upanishad. Narayana Upanishad, Katha Upanishad Shvetashvatara Upanishad, Mundaka Upanishad, etc — all have extremely clear theistic language
I have read all of those already, and I asked for specific verses which would support your interpretation, the failure to provide specific verses purporting to support your position is a failure to provide an argument for your case.

Narayana is a minor Upanishad, only the major (Mukhya) Upanishads are considered Sruti, the minor Upanishads were composed by random people throughout history and are fallible and are considered by some to be below even Smriti texts in their authority, the minor Upanishads hold about the same amount of authority as yoga-sastras.

The Katha, Svetasvatara and Mundaka Upanishads present Brahman as the source of the universe, which Advaita agrees with; but they don't say that Brahman has a mind that is concerned with what happens in the universe and constantly intervening in the universe to change things as western theists typically understand their theist God to do. And not once do these Upanishads present Brahman as having the type of personality that Vaishnavas claim Brahman has. They don't attribute love and justice and mercy to Brahman.

[Anonymous No.18427078]

>>18426344
if you ever want to discern something all you have to do is ask if it caters to gregarious /pol/ larping. this is the sign of immaturity

[Anonymous No.18427104]

can we have advaita refutation general?

>Anyone, so-called spiritualist or transcendentalist, if he is claiming that "There is no God," "I am God," "There is voidness," these are all disturbing positions, different symptoms of this disease of māyā. It is disease. How one can think of, that he is God? That means he does not know what is God. If I say here that "I am President Nixon," would you accept it? Would you accept? Any one of you, if I say that "I am President Nixon," will you accept? Why? Why? Why? Why you do not accept me? I say, "I am President Nixon." Why do you not accept? Why?

>You are sane, that you do not accept me as President... That is one thing. At least you are not insane. So if I say, "God," and you accept, then how much insane you are. Just try to understand. How much insanity is there, one who is claiming that "I am God" and one who is accepting that he is God. This is insanity.

[Anonymous No.18427115]

>Bhaskara is positively vitriolic when writing about the Advaitin’s concept of maya, referring to it’s adherents as bauddha-matavalambin (those that cling to Buddhist ideology) and goes on to say that their philosophy reeks of Buddhism (bauddha-gandhin). Bhaskara concludes that, “No one but a drunkard could hold such theories” and that Mayavada is subversive of all sastrika knowledge:

>Expanding on the contradictory and baseless philosophy of maya propagated by the Mahayanika Buddhists, the Mayavadis have misled the whole world. (Bhaskara’s Brahma-sutra-bhasya 1.4.25)

-

>In his Siddha-traya, theVaisnava philosopher Yamunacarya(917–1042 CE) stated thatBuddhism and Mayavada was essentially the same thing. The only difference he could see was that while one was openly Buddhist (prakata-saugata), the other wassimply covered (pracchana-saugata)

[Anonymous No.18427120]

>Following on from Yamunacarya, his disciple**Sri Ramanuja (1017-1137 CE)**also concurred that Mayavada was another form of Buddhism. In his Sri Bhashya commentary on the Vedanta-sutras, Ramanuja says that to claim that non-differentiated consciousness is real and all else is false is the same as the Buddhist concept of universal void. Furthermore, Ramanuja states that the concepts of such crypto-Buddhists make a mockery of the teachings of the Vedas (veda-vadacchadma pracchana-bauddha).

>Another acarya in the line of Ramanuja,Vedanta Desika(1269–1370) wrote his famous Sata-dusini, a text expounding one hundred flaws found in Mayavada. In that work he refers to Sankara as a rahu-mimamsaka (one who obscures the true meaning of Vedanta), a bhrama-bhiksu (a confused beggar), a cadmavesa-dhari – one who is disguised in false garb, and goes on to assert that,“By memorizing the arguments of the Sata-dusini like a parrot, one would be victorious over the crypto-Buddhists.”

-

>In another work, Paramata-bhangam, Vedanta Desika refers to Sankara as,“One who studied the Vedas in the shop of a Madhyamika Buddhist”(referring to Sankara’s param-guru Gaudapada of whom we will speak of later in this article).

-

>Amongst all acaryas and philosophers,Sri Madhvacarya was certainly the most hostile towards Sankara. Throughout his campaign to establish his philosophy of Dvaitavada, Madhva continuously attacked Mayavada, which he considered to be the worst kind of heresy. In his Anu-vyakhyana, Brhad-bhasya and Tattvodyota, Madhva also makes the claim that the Advaitins arecrypto-Buddhists – na ca sunyavadinah sakasad vailaksanyam mayavadinah (there is no doctrinal difference between Buddhism and Mayavada). He even quotes Buddhist texts and compares them to Advaitin works to prove his point.

[Anonymous No.18427126]

>If you hear this Māyāvādī speaking, then your future is doomed. You are finished. Because as soon as you have become infected with the Māyāvāda philosophy, it will take millions of years to come to the platform of devotional service. It is so dangerous.

>The Buddhists, they clearly say there is no God. Zero. Śūnyavādī. So we can understand their position, and the Māyāvādīs, they're so dangerous that they will not say that God is zero.

>There are two kinds of dangerous person. One person is atheist, agnostic. And another person is Māyāvādī, impersonalist. Nirviśeṣa-śūnyavādī.

[Anonymous No.18427138]

>There is danger certainly; but only if we mistake the part for the whole, only if we mistake our own soul in its timeless unity for the living God. According to the great Muslim mystic, Al-Junayd of Baghdad, this is not only a danger, but a trap that the Lord himself sets for the mystic who has advanced so far that he has put behind him the fear of God -- who has forgotten that "it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God" (Heb. 10. 31). Such a man will mistake his own soul for God, and in very single mystical tradition, whether it be Hindu, Buddhist or Muslim, this will happen; and again in each of these traditions this mistake will be refuted by mystics who have had the two experiences -- that of the "isolation" of the transcendent and timeless "self" or soul and that of the overwhelming eruption into that soul of the love of God. The mistake is so easy to make; indeed, it is almost inevitable, for man was made "in the image and likeness of God", and unless he knows God either by faith or, better still, by experience, he can scarcely fail to mistake the image, once purified by asceticism and a total detachment from all temporal things, from the living God whom the image reflects.

>... The second type of mysticism is the most strange; it is that described "from his own unforgettable experience" by Buber, and philosophically pin-pointed by the Samkhya-Yoga in India: the experience of the unfractionable oneness of the transcendent self, separate and isolated not only from the world of matter and mind, but also from all other "selves" and from all present knowledge of the living God. This we meet with among the Sufis; it is probably what the Buddhists of the so-called "Defective Vehicle" understand by nirvana. It can be tasted by all men, for this is the "image of God" in the human soul which even Original Sin could not blot out. It is this "image" that the mystic, as Buber saw, is almost bound to mistake for the godhead itself, as the non-dualist Vedantis did, and as Vivekenanda has done in recent times. It is the "trap" that a jealous God puts in the way of the spiritually proud.

[Anonymous No.18427150]

[Anonymous No.18427157]

[Anonymous No.18427205]

>>18427104
>advaita refutation general?
A hopeless endeavor, as Advaita is impossible to refute. In that whole series of greentexts, not a single argument against Advaita was quoted, only name-calling. There are no logical contradictions in Advaita and it's impossible to show that there are.

[Anonymous No.18427414]

>>18427205
It's just rationalist theology. Part of the long march to atheism.

[Anonymous No.18427499]

>>18427414
>It's just rationalist theology
how so?

[Anonymous No.18427660]

You can tell by the arguments in this thread that nobody here has actually had The Mystical Experience. Words words words is the real samsara and you'll never realize the nature submerged in them or different philosophers.

[Anonymous No.18427844]

>>18427660
Wooow, you really showed them there!

[Anonymous No.18427919]

>>18427660
Based and truth-pilled.

[Anonymous No.18427931]

>>18427660
This, truly

[Anonymous No.18427964]

>>18427499
>build a baroque syllogistic system in which it is necessary for god to exist
>look what I proved
It is the same issue thomism has, but the indo-thomists never had anyone other than Buddhists tell them that reason was creating illusions, to which the responses are
>check out my syllogisms though
>scriptures say otherwise

[Anonymous No.18427973]

Why did the Buddha reject the Vedas?

[Anonymous No.18427989]

>>18427104
>If I say here that "I am President Nixon," would you accept it? Would you accept? Any one of you, if I say that "I am President Nixon," will you accept? Why? Why? Why? Why you do not accept me? I say, "I am President Nixon." Why do you not accept?
This is the most Indian thing I have ever read in text to be honest. I have traveled in India for over 6 months and would like to say that I know their mentality pretty well.
This shit is gold!

[Anonymous No.18428042]

>>18427964
>in which it is necessary for god to exist
Well, there is no other logical explanation for the existence of the universe

[Anonymous No.18428091]

>>18426304
>Buddhism lives rent-free in Hinduism.

thought this was a generic statement until i read these
>>18427157
>>18427150

hinduism really did copy buddhism, cool

[Anonymous No.18428098]

>>18428091
>hinduism really did copy buddhism, cool
*Advaita vedanta really did copy buddhism, cool

[Anonymous No.18428103]

>>18427660
Fuck you talking about retard? If the absence of words is your signifier of "The Mystical Experience" then you wouldn't ever know about the ones that had the experience.
>mu
WAOWIEEEEEEEE SO ENLIGHTENED

[Anonymous No.18428119]

>>18428042
>if I don't order my mind to give me some paradigms I won't be able to make sense of things
That's not proof of god at all. But at least the Vedas say it was him. And those were written by god, therefore he exists. Whew.

[Anonymous No.18428133]

>>18427973
He came from the eastern Ganges, where India's wisdom and ascetic traditions were invented, not the upper Indus region where the brahmans following the Vedas lived. He was likely not part of the vedic cultural complex, just like the brahmans were not part of the eastern cultural complex until it influenced theirs.

But he may have studied at Taxila like many other sages. Taxila may have been an Achaemenid institution and the whole upper Indus region may have been heavily influenced by the Persian occupation under Cyrus, which was continuous for 200+ years.

There were many traditions interacting in the days of the Jains, Buddhists, Upanishads, and possibly Aranyakas, to say the least. But we can know reasonably accurately that the Buddha was not simply within a standalone "vedic" tradition, then rejected it. The vedic cultural complex may actually have been in significant decay in the few hundred years around the Jains and Buddhas, and revived by activities like theirs. Pre-upanishad brahmanism was fixated on ritual magic, and seems stagnant and pharisaic.

[Anonymous No.18428196]

>>18428119
>That's not proof of god at all.
Advaita doesn’t say like Thomism does that you can infallibly prove the existence of God because they recognize that human logic isn’t infallible, so it’s not a rational theology because its a spiritual tradition which centers around a supra-rational spiritual understanding. With that being said they don’t discount the value of logic altogether but they accept that if something fails to withstand logical analysis then that’s an indication that it’s wrong, and because every explanation for the universe aside from God fails to withstand logical analysis, that’s something which provides a strong indication that God is responsible for the existence of the universe, although of course it doesn’t infallibly prove it. This is not a problem for Advaita though because the spiritual realization and enlightenment they teach doesn’t first require one to irrefutably prove God before one can attain that enlightenment and bliss.

[Anonymous No.18428227]

>>18428133
> He came from the eastern Ganges where India's wisdom and ascetic traditions were invented, not the upper Indus region where the brahmans following the Vedas lived
That’s completely wrong, the early Upanishads are wisdom texts dealing with asceticism that predate Buddha and were composed by Brahmins steeped in Vedic culture, there is no indication whatsoever that people in eastern India were talking about these subjects before the Upanishads were.

> Pre-upanishad brahmanism was fixated on ritual magic, and seems stagnant and pharisaic.
"Without any want, contemplative, immortal, self-originated, sufficed with a quintessence, lacking in naught whatever: lie who knoweth that constant, ageless, and ever-youthful Spirit, knoweth indeed himself, and feareth not to die"
- Arthava Veda 10.8.44

[Anonymous No.18428488]

>>18426069
>>18426406
>>18426487
>>18426525
>>18426453

How did you bros get so into Krishna? I will take the Krishna pill. I just need the starter.

[Anonymous No.18428601]

>>18428488
Read the Bhagavad Gita with devotion. The Srimad Bhagavatam is also a wonderful and very long work

[Anonymous No.18428659]

>>18421930
>This sentence is wrong because Advaita Vedanta is a form of monotheism. Both Advaita and Vishishtadvaita worship one Supreme Lord and they both say that other deities are contingent upon this one Supreme Being
That's what monism is

[Anonymous No.18428696]

>>18427104
Is this supposed to be a serious refutation or are you just posting meme?

[Anonymous No.18428746]

>>18428227
You mean Atharva Veda, neovedantanon?

[Anonymous No.18428847]

>>18428746
>you mean Arthava Veda
What exactly are you asking? I quoted a verse from the Arthava Veda talking about the same non-dual attitude as the later Upanishads (who knoweth that ageless spirit knoweth indeed himself) to show that even pre-Upanishads the Vedas were not exclusively concerned with ritual/magic but still contained an important spiritual understanding; the Upanishads are the further elaboration and flowering of what's already there in the earlier portion of the Vedas.
>neovedantanon
I have never read any Neo-Vedanta writings but only classical Advaita writings and other classical and medieval Hindu literature. Classical Advaita is very different from Neo-Vedanta.

[Anonymous No.18428899]

Did Guenonfag break the buddhist bucks here?

[Anonymous No.18428910]

>>18428659
>That's what monism is
There are various types of monisms that differ from eachother, but the most commonly accepted definition or the most widely used one has to do with the position that there is a single substance that constitutes all of existence.

Monotheism just means the worship of one God. Monotheism and monism are not mutually exclusive, if you worship one supreme God and believe that He makes up all of existence, you are both a monotheist and a monist; although they might take issue with the label, this is basically the position of Vishishtadvaita and Kashmir Shaivism since they both worship one supreme God who they say makes up the universe and physical objects.

Advaita is monotheist because it worships one supreme God but it's not monism because for Advaita Brahman is different from the physical world. According to Advaita Brahman is formless but the world is characterized by form. Advaita would only be monism if it said that physical objects are identical with Brahman and have Brahman as the substance making them up.

Although most schools of Hinduism acknowledge other Hindu gods in addition to whomever they consider the supreme God, this is still arguably monotheism as the lesser gods that they acknowledge are effectively reduced to the status of lesser, contingent, created beings like angels, they are not viewed as being the uncaused source of everything like the supreme God is.

[Anonymous No.18428918]

>>18428196
>so it’s not a rational theology
Correction: it is a theology that is logical or rational, but it's not "rationalist"

[Anonymous No.18429015]

>>18426854
and its all shit

[Anonymous No.18429049]

>>18425649
>A good vid more people need to watch.
Dharma Pravartaka Acharya makes two false statements in that video.

In the first he says that scholars and historians agree (it's not up for debate he says) that the pre-Shankara Vedanta commentators all held to Ramanuja's philosophy. This is totally wrong, there are various early commentators who held different views, the various Vedanta schools claim one or another of them while disagreeing with others, and modern scholars are divided on which Vedanta school those early commentators actually represented. Advaitins regard Upavarsha as an authority and Shankara quotes from his works for example, Ramanuja and Vishishtadvaitins also try to claim Upavarsha and say that he was the same person as Bodhāyana, but this identification of Upavarsha with Bodhāyana by Vishishtadvaitins has been questioned by scholars, such as Surendranath Dasgupta to just name one.

The second false statement is when he says that the Brahman in Advaita is fooled by maya, and that Advaitins have never succeeding in solving this problem. This is wrong because it's explicitly taught in Advaita that the Atman-Brahman is not affected by maya whatsoever, the jiva is the one who is ignorant and who obscures the Atman-Brahman from itself with its own ignorance, but the Atman-Brahman is unaffected by that. Shankara provides a refutation of the attempt to say that the Atman-Brahman in Advaita is fooled, bound or otherwise overcome by maya in his bhasya on Bhagavad-Gita verse 13.2. The allegation that Brahman is affected, bound or made ignorant by maya can only be made by someone who is ignorant of what Advaita really teaches, who has not read Shankara's writings.

[Anonymous No.18429161]

>>18428899
literally every day

[Sage No.18429569]