/lit/ - Literature

>Buddhism

retroactively refuted by Srī Śaṅkara Bhagavatpādācārya (pbuh)

When did the Buddha teach that the soul does not exist?

Alright Buddhists of lit
advita fag here what Buddhists texts should I read that show the supremacy of Buddhism and not advita Vedanta?
read In the Buddha's Words didn't find it too profound

>>17505322
>buddha
refuted by Shankara

>From whatever new points of view the Buddha's system is tested with reference to its probability, it gives way on all sides, like the walls of a well, dug in sandy soil. It has, in fact, no foundation whatever to rest upon and hence the attempts to use it as a guide in the practical concerns of life are mere folly. Moreover Buddha, by propounding the three mutually contradicting systems, teaching respectively the reality of the external world, the reality of ideas only and general nothingness, has himself made it clear that he was a man given to make incoherent assertions or else that hatred of all beings induced him to propound absurd doctrines by accepting which they would become thoroughly confused…Buddha’s doctrine has to be entirely disregarded by all those who have a regard for their own happiness."

Brahma Sutra Bhasya 2.2.32.

>>17426466
>visited him in Egypt to disprove him on Buddhism,
If by convincing him what you mean they got Guenon to concede that its possible that Buddhist was originally a spinoff of Upanishadic absolutism and that it didn't deny the existence of an atman, then yes; but scholars such as Stanislaw Schayer and C.Rhys Davids had already been writing about such a possibility for a while.

How does someone actually chose a tradition they want to imitate in if they we're born into the religion?
I'm wondering for both Buddhism and Hinduism

>>17285815
>>"Oh monks, this devious demon in human form
>When has someone ever needed to do this to defend atheism?

Buddha himself uses it as a tactic in the Brahma-nimantanika Sutta, when instead of explaining why the positions espoused by Brahma-baka in a debate are wrong he instead uses his superpowers to create a supernatural display for the audience and then says that Brahma-baka is actually a demon Mara, or is possessed by Mara, but he never actually addresses what Brahma-baka says.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.049.than.html

it speaks to the oft-observed nature of buddhists from buddha onwards to attack and try to deconstruct the messenger instead of responding to their arguments when those messengers point out the fundamental contradictions in buddhist doctrine or otherwise challenge it. The influential Japanese Indologist and Buddhism scholar Hajime Nakamura wrote the following in an article about the Brahma-nimantanika Sutta:

>In early Buddhist literature there is no reference to Brahman (neuter) as absolute, but only to Brahmā (masculine) the creator God. The principle of absolute consciousness is however mentioned in a debate between the Buddha and Brahmā. The Buddha does not defeat this view by polemics but by supernatural powers. 86

86) Majjhima Nikaya I.329 - Sutta, No. 49. Cited in H. Nakamura, " Upaniṣadic Tradition and the Early School of Vedānta as Noticed in Buddhist Scripture, "Harvard Journal of Asian Studies, 18 June 1955, pp.78-79

https://pdfslide.net/documents/upanisadic-tradition-and-the-early-school-of-vedanta-as-noticed-in-buddhist-scripture-nakamura-hajime.html

>>17239686
through the brilliance of one man and his refutations of Buddhist doctrine

to this day they still cope by trying to attack the messenger instead of addressing his dozens of observations about Buddhism being illogical

>>17233337

>>17053501
>Buddha is a cool Aryan warrior chad or whatever.
nah

>>17020810
>I'm just not a fan of the set-up
Then stop reading it, and read the good shit (otherwise known as Sri Śaṅkarācārya) instead, start here

https://www.stillnessspeaks.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/ShankaraAtmaBodha.pdf

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

>Suffer until you stop existing in any meaningful way
I know right? Truly, Shankara was correct when he so thoughtfully advised us in his commentary on Brahma Sutra 2.3.32. that "Buddha’s doctrine has to be entirely disregarded by all those who have a regard for their own happiness."

>>16993394
>Anon, if this is the case then you are LITERALLY an NPC. You are the kind of person the NPC meme was created to describe.
No, because the "I" referred to as you by "you" is the pilot. I am the pilot, I am not being piloted. I am not the physical body, I am the pilot of sentience which pilots the body. NPCs do not have any inner conscious experience, as in Buddhist doctrine which only admits disparate experiences without an experiencer.
>>16993407
Again, you are confusing awareness with the objects of awareness. Any time you speak of "awareness of something" you are speaking of the object of awareness. My awareness continues in between the different objects which are reflected in it from time to time. And it is because of this that I can perceive them entering into and leaving my field of awareness, otherwise I would be unable to perceive this. I would not see the car leaving until it was no longer in my sight. If there was no awareness separate from its objects. Then the expression "awareness of something" would be a meaningless tautology and you wouldn't have used it, the very way in which you use language shows that you instinctively understand the distinction but deny it because of your ideological commitment.
>>16993414
I agree
>>16993415
I am the pilot, not the thing being piloted.
>>16993610
>but simply refuse to acknowledge even a shred of effectiveness of its teaching
Why should I when practically the entire multi-thousand year world religion set up in Buddha's name all deny this interpretation of Buddhism. It's like someone trying to revive lysenkoism or orgone research in modern science. How you say that it is effective when its seen as a heresy? I don't think it is effective, I think it is poor mans (no pun intended) apophatic negation which loses sight of the target by being too autistic and cryptic about what it is pointing at.

>>16946558

>From whatever new points of view the Buddha's system is tested with reference to its probability, it gives way on all sides, like the walls of a well, dug in sandy soil. It has, in fact, no foundation whatever to rest upon and hence the attempts to use it as a guide in the practical concerns of life are mere folly. Moreover Buddha, by propounding the three mutually contradicting systems, teaching respectively the reality of the external world, the reality of ideas only and general nothingness, has himself made it clear that he was a man given to make incoherent assertions or else that hatred of all beings induced him to propound absurd doctrines by accepting which they would become thoroughly confused…Buddha’s doctrine has to be entirely disregarded by all those who have a regard for their own happiness."

Śaṅkarācārya - Brahma Sutra Bhasya 2.2.32.

>>16923190
>he doesn’t know what happened at the debate between Shankara and Mandana Misra and his wife
OH NO NO NO NO NO

>>16886197

If you want to save yourself a lot of time and cut through a lot of unnecessary fluff, ignore everything about Hinduism written after the 17th century, just pick up one of the medieval commentaries written on the Gita in wonderfully poetic prose and go from there

>Shankara's Gita commentary (8th century)
https://archive.org/details/Bhagavad-Gita.with.the.Commentary.of.Sri.Shankaracharya

>Abhinavagupta's Gita commentary (10th century)
http://www.mediafire.com/file/5ydfuxohdtms7um/Bhagavad_Gita_Abhinavagupta_Bhashya_%2528B_Marjanovic%2529.pdf/file

>Ramanuja's Gita commentary (11th century)
http://www.srimatham.com/uploads/5/5/4/9/5549439/ramanuja_gita_bhashya.pdf

>Jnanadeva's Gita commentary (13th century)
https://estudantedavedanta.net/Sri-Jnandevas-Bhvartha-Dipika-Jnaneswari_smaller.pdf

>From whatever new points of view the Buddha's system is tested with reference to its probability, it gives way on all sides, like the walls of a well, dug in sandy soil. It has, in fact, no foundation whatever to rest upon and hence the attempts to use it as a guide in the practical concerns of life are mere folly. Moreover Buddha, by propounding the three mutually contradicting systems, teaching respectively the reality of the external world, the reality of ideas only and general nothingness, has himself made it clear that he was a man given to make incoherent assertions or else that hatred of all beings induced him to propound absurd doctrines by accepting which they would become thoroughly confused…Buddha’s doctrine has to be entirely disregarded by all those who have a regard for their own happiness."

Śaṅkarācārya - Brahma Sutra Bhasya 2.2.32.

>>16483347
> but that’s just what I hear. Most of Advaita has already been refuted by Buddhist scholars and monks.
Are you deliberately lying or just making things up? Shankara extensively refuted Yogachara and Sarvastivada doctrines in his writings and has a few arguments against Madhyamaka as well. No Buddhist thinker ever penned any text defending against Shankara’s attacks despite Shankara being rightfully regarded as one of the primary architects of Buddhisms decline in India. Out of the history of all Buddhism, I am aware of only one text which attempts to refute Advaita, which is one of Bhaviveka’s compendiums, but here in this text he confuses between the views of Advaita and Bhedebheda Vedanta and directs his attacks against an amalgamation of their views which didn’t exist as an actual school in real life, thus he completely fails to refute anything. Buddhist drones just pretend that Buddhism refuted Advaita when the historical record shows the opposite, that Shankara correctly and lucidly pointed out many internal contradictions in Buddhism, and the Buddhists were never able to a) refute those charges or b) provide a refutation of Advaita itself

>>16475334
> Shankara's whole philosophy is just Mahayana with some names changed,
Wrong, his ‘philosophy’ comes straight from the Upanishads
>and he has long been criticized for all but rejecting the necessity of ritual
The Upanishads themselves negate the importance of ritual, in any case Shankara approved of rituals but just wrote that once you become an ascetic monk as the Upanishads say you should then at that point rituals become pointless, but not before.
> and the authority of sruti over reason.
False, Shankara wrote that the sruti is an infallible source of truth and he condemned independent reasoning without scriptures as a doomed venture. It is the later Vedantists like Madhva who actually do this and who rejects certain claims by the sruti when they seem to conflict with bodily perception, but Shankara accepts those claims and adduces why it doesn’t actually contradict perception
>That's why he is called "crypto-buddhist."
Other Hindus who dont have as rigourous of an exegesis and philosophy call him that as cope, and Buddhists call him that as cope to distract from the fact that he utterly demolished Buddhism and explained how it’s all nonsensical.
>Shankara’s monasticism is modeled on Mahayana monasticism
False, it is modeled on monasticism as taught in the Upanishads, which promote monasticism as an ideal even in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad which predated Buddha by centuries, plus in the Pali Canon are described instances of ascetic Brahmin monks who already existed when Buddha was alive.
>his epistemology is buddhist to the point
False, his epistemology is rooted in the Upanishads and in the earlier Mimansa and Nyaya Hindu schools, whose methods of reasoning he at times uses and comments on. Buddhist epistemology is sophistic and without logical justification, and Shankara elucidates this in his writings.

tldr: more NPCddhist cope

>>16448250
I think Buddhism is shit because

1) Nobody even knows what Buddha really taught and every Buddhist school just projects their views onto the Pali Canon, but there is no serious foundation for any one school to say "he clearly taught Buddhism as explained by our school"
1) The original Pali Canon scriptures as well as later Buddhist texts are often boring, repetitive, pedantic, full of cloying moralism etc
2) The denial of the Self by Buddhism is incoherent and doesn't align with how we actually experience consciousness as a smooth continuum, and Buddha never even says that the self doesn't exist in the Pali Canon btw but all the Buddhists schools still for some reason felt compelled for some dumb reason to deny that we have selves despite their religions founder not doing so (that the denial of the self which is important to later Buddhist schools was not taught by Buddha just confirms point #1 mentioned above, namely that no Buddhist school has any idea what the fuck Buddha was teaching)
3) Most of the metaphysical and cosmological doctrines of the various Buddhist schools are rife with absurd internal contradictions which show that they cannot possibly be true, and there is a long history of Hindu, Tantric and Jain philosophers noting this and critiquing Buddhism for this in their writings by pointing out its contradictions
4) It generally seems to promote the abandonment of critical thinking among its adherents and inculcates a stockholm-syndrome or cult-like attitude where people go to huge leaps to excuse problems and contradictions in Buddhism which they wouldn't accept elsewhere, I have never seen so much mental gymnastics, dishonest argumentation and self-deluding behavior until I started to debate with Buddhists on the internet about buddhism and religion.

>Also, what is the order I should read hindu scriptures in.

Start with the Bhagavad-Gita and then read the Upanishads

>Any good introductory works?

https://realization.org/p/ashtavakra-gita/richards.ashtavakra-gita/richards.ashtavakra-gita.html