/lit/ - Literature

>>12414840

In Mahayana Buddhism you have a lot of back and forth between various sects and texts on that very topic. For example the Tibetian sect of Jonang Buddhism explicitly teaches of a Buddha-matrix that can only be characterized by 'other-emptiness' and not 'self-emptiness' and they provide a lot of arguments drawing from various sutras and tantras to support this, Dzogchen claims the ground (their rough equivalent of Buddha-nature/matrix) is self-empty, but then they use like 90% of the same descriptions Shankara does for Atma to describe it, and these two groups debate and disagree with other groups who fall more in line with Nagarjuna for example and claim that the ultiamate/buddha-nature is self-empty/sunyata etc. There is not one unifying interpretation among the Mahayana but each sect takes their own view. Those favoring self-emptiness or a more explicit/total anatman are more common but as mentioned there are also exceptions. Each of these sects claims to have understood what Buddha actually taught but of course there is no way of absolutely knowing short of time-travel or supernatural means.

'The Counter Tradition, counter-traditional forces etc', he has a chapter on them in Reign of Quantity. He is not just trying to hint Jews because he has no problem openly mentioning their over-representation in Bolshevism in his book East and West, it goes deeper then them. From what I can understand, and I haven't read every single chapter of every book where he mentions them; is that they are people who through their actions and intentions align with the chaotic forces of the universe, and work either intentionally or unintentionally towards subverting the tradition and the cosmic hierarchy/order/dharma. It's sort of like part of the equilibrium of the cosmic being is that there is both order and disorder and that inevitably among the individual beings some will cluster closer to disorder and in doing so will will spread disorder and contribute to things like the Kali Yuga, but these chaotic forces are just the counter-balance of order in a sense and never interrupt the absolute equilibrium and perfection of the supreme principal in which everything is subsumed.

>>11547252

Yes, he is very good. He is kind of divisive on /lit/ and so in any thread on him half of the people will be posting angry shitposts and rants about him while the other half will be devout fans who've read half a dozen or more of his books. You should just read him and decide for yourself.

It's recommended that you start with his first book Introduction to the Study of the Hindu Doctrines (of which Hinduism only forms about 1/3 of the book), which is very helpful for understanding all of his other books. From there it's generally recommended that you read him more or less chronologically although you can skip his ones on theosophy and the spiritualist fallacy.

You can find all his books online here for free.

https://archive.org/details/reneguenon

>>11022262

If you are unable to comprehend the point I'm making without simplifying it down to new=bad and old=good than you must be the brainlet. The point is that its incredibly short-sighted to assume that something which has only existed for 150 years is likely to ultimately explain all previous thought.

The modern scientific outlook and the closely related psychological one is not free from bias as it believes itself to be but is rather the culmination of a long historical process and development of thought starting from the Greeks (and from before them the seed of teachings about skepticism that some Greeks learned while traveling in the east) and going on through the Enlightenment and loss-of-faith that characterized the 19th-21st centuries. The modern scientific outlook is heavily influenced by the rejection of Christianity and indeed defines itself in opposition to it, this leads to it being overly materialist and reflexively hostile to non-materialist ideas.

This same ethos extends even to psychologists and psychiatrists that are ostensibly open to eastern thought like Jung was and reveals itself in how they never consider that many aspects of the eastern teachings might actually be true and instead try to reduce them to scientific or psychological explanations (even with things like archetypes, collective unconscious or synchronicity it always had to be true in the special sense he defined, the doctrines themselves were never considered as possibly true).

A truly open and disinterested speculation would consider all possibilities and give them all time for evaluation and comparison instead of insisting only on either materialist or psychological explanations. Furthermore, modern psychology is neither new nor unique It has arisen before and been rejected in time. In different eastern cultures there have been different eras where groups and movements have arose making the same claims and pushing the same attitudes as modern psychology such as with certain sramanic sects in ancient India.

>>10702088

By delving more into 'metaphysics' in the Trad meaning of the term there is really just the option of reading more Trad analysis of metaphysics (e.g. guenon's Man and his becoming+symbolism of cross+multiple states, also Coomaraswamy) or studying other eastern texts themselves.

I'm the dude who recommended Adi Shankara to you in the other thread. His commentaries are good but are very heady and take a long time to read. If you want some texts that are shorter and get to the point faster maybe I'd recommend Tao Te Ching, Zhuangzi, Ashtavakra Gita, Yoga Sutras, any of the major Buddhist sutras like Heart, Diamond, Lotus etc. If you are interested in non-dualism specifically but Adi Shankara seems too dry there are also Kashmir Shaivism texts like the Shiva sutras etc.

>>7222017

Because the bliss that comes from freedom from all attachments is better then the joy you receive from attachments (at least according to the Buddhist view).

I personally am not enlightened but I have gotten a small taste or sense of it so I feel like I can speak on this with some certitude.

At one stage in my life I was at a reform-type school that kids get sent to when their parents catch them smoking weed too many times. For 80% of the day we either were not allowed to speak to others or we did not have an opportunity to, and I was there for about 9 months. I read up on and studied Buddhism during my free time there and since I had so much time in my own head not speaking with anyone I tried to see what it would be like to follow the eight-fold path as much as I could and to try to free myself from non-attachment. At almost every waking moment I attempted to guide my every single though, action, and emotional reaction to anything and everything according to the eight-fold path, pretty soon it was something I could do without even thinking about it. It was like experiencing pure bliss. I didn't get unhappy at anything, not from boredom, hungry, pain, tiredness, nothing. The flip side was I didn't dwell in and relish pleasurable sensations but merely continued on, experiencing them but not letting myself be affected by them. What I found was that after about a week of this I was basically feeling the best I had ever felt and it was ever better then that because there were no second-thoughts or analyzing or doubt about my present situation.

It was pure effortless bliss. It was akin to a permanent state of waking up from a midday nap without a care in the world or in a permanent state of near the end of a LSD/mushroom trip where you are not tripping anymore but still remember all the insights into how to go about life in a way that makes it all go better. Eventually of course I stopped doing it but for the while I was doing it I was in a state of constant equanimity and contentedness and all I would ever have to do to go back to that state is just put in the effort to do it.

When you give up attachment to all things including pleasurable as well as unpleasant sensations you experience bliss that its almost impossible to describe. After I had done it even stuff like enjoying eating delicious food or relishing in various physical pleasure like sex or laying down after hard work seems kind of lowly in comparison. A way to summarize it is that being free from being affected by all pleasant and unpleasant things alike is itself the most sublime pleasure someone can experience, in my opinion.

Also you don't have to give up everything now too, in many Buddhist countries in Asia its common for people to live normal lives and then seek enlightenment in old age.