/lit/ - Literature

>>11340772
No but I can tell you straight up that Hinduism is complete bullshit

>>11340782
Define Hinduism

>>11340782
Posts such as yours are completely pointless if you don't provide any reasoning that can be replied to. Arguing very poorly against something just makes that thing look better and usually makes people more interested in it.

>>11340782
I agree
t. Indian who was born in a brahmin family and is now an Orthodox Christian.

>>11340772
I can tell you that he's straw manning a hugely diverse tradition which, taken in its entirety is literally impossible to refute because it contains pretty much every basic worldview within itself, so you can provide an inter-Buddhism counterexample to every critique.

For example, OP's image begins by defining Buddhism by two ideas: dependent origination and momentariness. Dependent origination is only held by some Buddhist schools - mostly a theravada idea, but also in Mahayana, though in a lot of mahayana schools it's considered basically 'causality for retards' doctrine - what you teach to hoi polloi. Dzogchen teaches about a spontaneously arising basic space of phenomena which transcends any causality whatsoever, where all phenomena are 'magical apparitions spontaneously arising.' You see the same thing in Huayan Buddhism, where all pheonomena are thought of as hyper-dimensional reflective monads existing in an infinitely reflecting web. The seventh level of Tiantai is like Dzogchen too. You can even find this in Chan/Zen. Dependent arising, in most of Buddhism, is for kids and the illiterate.

His second point, momentariness, literally no one agrees on in Buddhism. That was the cause of the first great split that happened in Buddhism between the Mahasamgikas (who followed the 'momentariness' doctrine) and the Sautrantikas (who held that phenomena persist through the three times - past, present, and future). Mahasamgika doctrine seeded Mahayana, so momentariness was carried over into a lot of future forms of Buddhism across east asia though, so positing it as a normative position in Buddhism, though inaccurate, is understandable

So I think you get my point. If you're trying to btfo 'buddhism,' you're fighting a losing battle against a thousand-headed hydra that contains multitudes.

DID YOU KNOW that Tibetan Buddhism isn't actually Buddhism? It's Tantra. Even they figured out that it was full of tautologies and sophistry without praxis to clarify all errors.

>>11341460
This view relies on a fairly exhaustive ignorance of the history of Indian religions. It's pretty much the orthodox position of a lot of theravadins, both historically and into the present. But outside of card-carrying theravada ideologues literally no one agrees with this view.

>>11340772
first of all Shankara believes in an absolute reality with no empirical evidence and bad argumentation so all of his assumptions about common sense are suspect and should be ignored and not given creedence.

Second of all its co-dependent MUTUAL arising of conditions which are in flux and becoming, there is no substantial tree at all and the difference between it and a tiger are so slight as to be trivial and overcome easily when we realize that conditions carry over karmically from one manifestation to the next; next all the steps in the causal chain are simultaneous, Shankara and the idiot shitskin on this board who shills for him haven’t studied buddhism thoroughly beyond theravada bug philosophy, not to speak of Madhyamaka and Zen where most of these are dealt with. All things collapse into one instantaneous delusion that is self-same and continuous through experience, there is no time, memory is an illusion of seemingly similar becomings, neuroscience supports the idea we do not have strong imprints of long term past events, we have becomings which approximate them and which come from our substance changing with us to accomodate the necessitated memory, the idea of dependent arising and sudden appearance compliment one another, there is absolutely no way that things could be codepenently mutually arising all at once and not be instantaneous and without Svabhava. This poster is purposefully segregating the logical conclusions of emptiness, mutually dependent arising, karma and the implications of nirvana-samsara (again dealt with by more mature higher iq races in Asia, bugs cannot parse this) all of which guarantee momentary appearance of realities and the necessity that this appearance is implicated in all other appearances and they too in every appearances that’s been or will be, which of course are indecipherable, and totally unanalyzable which makes each point-instance of appearance impenetrable and substanceless and collapses the causal chain, logic and dual identity. You’re a fucking charlatan and the fact you don’t realize budhism is a way of organizing catalysts, kindling and ignition sources for excavating and condemning diseased faculties like causal perception and the idea of a Self is DAMNING and should expose Hinduism as a self-satisfied fop religion
>>11341396
>dependent arising is for kids
>dependent arising is causalith for plebs
i hate westerners so much

>>11340772
He's really fixated on the idea that dependent origination and momentariness are mutually exclusive. They aren't. He misunderstands both, we don't become a new entity at every moment of time based on what we were in the last moment of time. We exist in what's known as the present, the NOW. It's a constant, uninterrupted process. You can experience neither past nor future. Only the now can be experienced and now only lasts... well, now. You are not some entity that disappears and reappears as a copy of itself out of nothing. You just continue along in the present.

Also memory does not contradict or disprove momentariness in any way, If you recall memories of the past you recall them in the present, therefore you experience them in the present, not in the past. Everything you'll ever experience you experience in the present, therefore only present exists and the present only lasts a moment before it becomes past. I think that's the general idea and that guy basically missed the point.

I could be wrong about it all so feel free to correct and argue, I'm not big into buddhist philosophy

>>11340806
Care to elaborate?

>>11341499
>neuroscience supports the idea we do not have strong imprints of long term past events, we have becomings which approximate them and which come from our substance changing with us to accomodate the necessitated memory, the idea of dependent arising and sudden appearance compliment one another, there is absolutely no way that things could be codepenently mutually arising all at once and not be instantaneous and without Svabhava.

really anon. 'muh neuroscience' lmao

>>11340772
Buddhism is a mystic tradition. Practises like meditation are more important
than abstract philosophy.

>>11340772
That "doctrine of momentariness" as he puts it is actualy a wrong view. World is not in a constant change/flux. Difference between our reality and reality on itself is only in hate lust and delusion.

>>11341499
>This poster is purposefully segregating the logical conclusions of emptiness, mutually dependent arising, karma and the implications of nirvana-samsara (again dealt with by more mature higher iq races in Asia, bugs cannot parse this) all of which guarantee momentary appearance of realities and the necessity that this appearance is implicated in all other appearances and they too in every appearances that’s been or will be, which of course are indecipherable, and totally unanalyzable which makes each point-instance of appearance impenetrable and substanceless and collapses the causal chain, logic and dual identity.

in other words, not as Buddha and the early Buddhists themselves understood Buddhism but in our modern perennialist cosmopolitan mindsets where virtually anything can be sublimated to the idea of being representative of an alleged somehow greater Buddhist understanding

>>11341642
>really anon. 'muh neuroscience' lmao
not an argument

>>11341596
Russophile/Byzaboo who feels suffocated by people around him taking mythology literally and choosing retarded hogwash while renouncing common sense and logic.
Western civilization doesn't have this problem so I went it's way.

>>11341717
this guy probably thinks buddhism is the mostest scientifical religion

>>11341814
no I was just pointing out your non argument

>>11341499
anon if you look holistically at the history of Buddhism, you'll find that the majority of schools don't embrace dependent origination as the highest view. It's usually included in one of the lower levels.

>all this pointless and arbitrary metaphysical posturing.

None of you are close to even beginning to grasp the truth for yourselves. Buddhist, Hindu, Scientology, it doesn't matter. What matters is you sit down and work your utter fucking ARSE off sheding your delusions and experiencing undefilied reality for yourself.

I used to think Buddhism was "the truth.".I was to think if I read buddhist sutras and held buddhist concepts in my mind, I would be "truthy" in some fashion.

Then I actually started practicing and realised all of these things are but labels, simple fingers pointing to the moon, and that it was up to myself to grasp their worldless truths for myself.

Find a teacher. Follow whichever path appeals to your aesthetics, without getting attached to it. Most of all, abandon your desire to feel "right" about metaphysics and accept it can only be grasped by experience alone.

>>11340806
God bless you

>>11341758
>Russophile/Byzaboo who feels suffocated by people around him taking mythology literally and choosing retarded hogwash while renouncing common sense and logic.

Many westerners feel the same about Christianity. In both cases it may involve misunderstanding of the deeper principals involved and getting lost in consideration of such things as whether this myth/miracle did or happen or not.

The Hindu texts are generally quite clear that the ultimate reality of god transcends any cultural or historical circumstance, that all the various deities are manifestations of god leading back to the One. The extent to which any Hindu obsesses over mythical tales of any one emanation, manifestation or avatars over the understanding that there is one non-dual reality underlying everything is a deterioration of the traditional teachings as recorded by the Upanishads.

>>11341904
>anon if you look holistically at the history of Buddhism, you'll find that the majority of schools don't embrace dependent origination as the highest view. It's usually included in one of the lower levels.

Adi Shankara was arguing against what was being taught by 8th century Indian Buddhists, the views he argues against are fairly representative of 8th-century Indian Buddhism.

>>11341709
no because the other schools elaborated on the idea which began to stagnate and lose potency among Theravadists as they are autistic ants
>>11341904
no, and again at the highest level all of it collapses using Sunyata and the idea of Buddha Nature, confluence of samsara-nirvana, much of this is completely trivial
>>11342418
Shankara was not well schooled in Buddhism which was already flourishing in East Asia, he had no idea what Sunyata really meant or how its a solution to much of these issues and if you deal with vajrayana and mahayana they are unconcerned by much of these issues because of two truths and because of emptiness and most importantly buddhanature+samsara-nirvana nondualism. he is a con artist snake dogmatist just like all philosophers are. Pyrrho dealt with this shit in the fucking 2nd century BCE

you’re taking up an efette, pathetic stance that you think is some type of death blow when buddhism is just a reaction to a false worldview. neither of these views deals with math or physics properly. buddhists are right there is no self, there are substances as processes and they do proliferate for long periods. suffering is unimportant, there is no enlightenment and certainly no Brahman or ground.

if you can’t deal with this its because you are weak, weak beyond comprehension anon

>>11342432
>Shankara was not well schooled in Buddhism which was already flourishing in East Asia, he had no idea what Sunyata really meant or how its a solution to much of these issues and if you deal with vajrayana and mahayana they are unconcerned by much of these issues because of two truths and because of emptiness and most importantly buddhanature+samsara-nirvana nondualism.

The fact that the teachings of Buddhism were allowed to deteriorate so much that there is little agreement about what should or should not be considered Buddhism does not itself reflect well on the coherentness of Buddha's original teachings.

>you’re taking up an efette, pathetic stance that you think is some type of death blow when buddhism is just a reaction to a false worldview. neither of these views deals with math or physics properly. buddhists are right there is no self, there are substances as processes and they do proliferate for long periods. suffering is unimportant, there is no enlightenment and certainly no Brahman or ground.

So you aren't even argueing that Buddhism is correct and don't even agree with it other than in the certain areas you cherry-pick. Come back to me when you are actually willing to say any doctrine is completely correct or advance your own ideas that are; until then you're just posturing
.
>if you can’t deal with this its because you are weak, weak beyond comprehension anon

lmao don't cut yourself on that edge there anon

>>11342418
So Candrakirti btfo, not Buddhism btfo, yeah? I'm with you there. My whole point was that OP's image was addressing an extremely limited, geographically and historically circumscribed position within Buddhism, and that critique of that position hardly amounts to critique of Buddhism per se.

>>11342432
You're betraying your ignorance of, well, pretty much most of the history of Buddhism. Sunyata is specifically repudiated by all of Tibetan Buddhism (with the exception of the Gelukpas, who maintained it as the ultimate view). It is also repudiated by Zhiyi and by the Chongxuan philosophers of the Tang, not to mention what happens in Japanese Pureland and Tiantai. You pronounce doctrinal normativity like a Buddhist ideologue but lack to knowledge of Buddhist history to back it up. Sunyata, once again, is a specific and historically limited idea within Buddhism, so the same critique I leveled about your assumption of across-the-board acceptance of dependent origination applies here as well. Both of these ideas - emptiness and dependent origination - were deeply problematic in the Chinese reception of Buddhism. Some schools accepted them, but others didn't. A similar story plays out in the Tibetan reception too.

>>11342432
>suffering is unimportant
Could you elaborate?

TEll me what advantage would I gain by refuting this person?

I'd rather meditate and purify my thoughts and actions.

>>11342742
emptiness is only rejected by buddha-jesus cultism everywhere that Anatta was taken seriously sees it as a logical consequence of No-Self
>>11342488
you’re not philosophically inclined at all, just a dogmatist

sunyata is guaranteed by the existence of samsara and by anatta

>>11341460
>Buddhism
>without "praxis"
ughhhhhhhh

>>11342432
>suffering is unimportant
why are you pretending to understand Buddhism, you HERETIC

>tfw Shankara did BTFO 8th-century Indian Buddhism but the larger question of whether Buddha's original teachings are contradictory cannot even be examined because the Buddhists themselves can't even agree between themselves which concepts are true and valid buddhism

>>11340782
>>11340806
Ha, what? Just for the theodicy hinduism is obviously superior. Even without considering a Hindu had never tried to convince me the Mahabarata is literal truth. Like have you ever even read Genesis christians?

>>11343042
*blows mandala*

>>11343042
>Can't agree which concepts are true
Sounds like the same issue with Hinduism or Zen. Why Asian religions so vague and self contradictory?

>>11343320
>Sounds like the same issue with Hinduism

Except that Hinduism is eternally rooted in the Vedas and their attendant texts the Brahmans and Upanishads. Orthodoxy in Hinduism is concretely established in these revealed texts which are the Sruti. Hinduism has never had this same problem that Buddhism does because all interpretations are by default only orthodox if they align with the Sruti. The Sruti are overwhelmingly non-dualist. The different between Shankara's non-dualism and Ramanuja's qualified non-dualism is only a matter of emphasis. Dvaita is solidly heterodox insofar as it's overwhelmingly contradicted by the Sruti. Dvaita only arose in the 13th century and has historically had very little influence and spread among Hindus, furthermore most of the prominent Dvaita sects presently active incorporate many ideas from qualified non-dualism. Non-dualism and the various ways of explaining it form the eternal orthodoxy of Hinduism and the Vedic texts.

>>11343320
>why are religions so self contradictory?
Why indeed.

>>11343354
>their attendant texts the Brahmans

*the Brahmanas

ITTT: orientalist faggots try to perfect their western individualism, distinguishing themselves from their surroundings by adopting a collectivist tradition from streetpoopistan.

>on the bus reading Sri Śaṅkarācārya's Brahma Sutra commentary
>I'm at the part right before Śaṅkarācārya' refutes Buddhism by noting that the doctrine of momentariness is nonsensical because its implication is that the antecedent thing would have to cease to exist at the next moment when the subsequent thing is created, meaning that it could not be the cause of the other, which goes against the principle that the cause is necessarily non-momentary by existing in a new form in the effect; and that the only way for the Buddhists to reconcile this would be to hold that existence proceeds out of non-existence which is impossible and itself would violate the Buddhist tenet that every effect has a cause
>slouch down my seat and yell, "YO, THIS NIGGA FINNA BOUTTA GET DABBED ON"
>my all-pervading self laughs
>a wave in the limitless ocean of myself looks at my jiva-atma and says "You aight, white boy"
>Hear "He cute" from another wave

>>11343386
>distinguishing themselves from their surroundings

>not realizing that there is no difference between the self and one's surroundings, that they are one and the same, that there is nobody to distinguish oneself to because the same omnipresent self is in everyone and everything

ishygddt

>>11340772
contradiction is fantasy and clung to only by rationalists who care about the principle of non contradiction

>>11341499
>>11342432
keep fighting the good fight, anon

Yes and I would not call myself a Buddhist
>Doctrine of momentariness can easily be disprove [sic] by the fact that we remember past experiences through memory
>Momentariness and dependent origination also mutually contradict one another, especially with regard to the 12-step chain of origination and karma
This anon is not representing "momentariness" accurately and in fact is not at all thinking of moments in regards to dependent origination. The way this anon makes it out, each moment arises completely independently. Rather, moments are at the same time distinct moments and interconnected to various other moments that comprise phenomenon, arising out of other moments and fading into others, leaving only a Now that is always changing. Memory is nothing but a moment itself, a recollection arising from the influence of past moments; and when you think of memory, it is indeed a present event - it is not a perfect recall, but a reconstruction in the present of what has already occurred and fallen away.
If you look at it this way, momentariness and dependent origination go hand in hand, and there is no contradiction especially in terms of karma.
>Secondly... there would have to be a reason....this is never explained
This isn't an argument at all, and I wish I could provide an answer but I do not know what he is referring to with 12 Nidanas. It is the equivalent of saying "What was there before God? It's never explained, Christianity contradicts itself!", or at lest seems so to me.
tl;dr The anon in the pic separates momentariness from dependent origination for no reason, when indeed the doctrines are complimentary. Perhaps it stems from a confusion in what a 'moment' in Buddhism entails.

bump

>it’s a western romantics try to comprehend eastern philosophy episode


Yikezerino

>>11342206
>Then I actually started practicing and realised all of these things are but labels, simple fingers pointing to the moon, and that it was up to myself to grasp their worldless truths for myself.

That seems like an uber Buddhist conclusion though. Buddha never said, "this is Buddhism." He talked about dharma, kind of like you are after having practiced meditation for a bit. It seems like you found your truth BECAUSE OF your Buddhism.

>>11342206
Both Sanatana Dharma (Hinduism) and I think Buddhism agree that there are many paths to spiritual liberation. Hindus would also say there's many paths to God, so I think someone itt is exaggerating how dogmatic both are.

>>11340772
>Doctrine momentariness can easily be disproved by the fact that we remember past experiences through memory.
I'm not really following the logic here. Memory is an imprint of previous events in the brain like a footprint is an imprint of a foot on the ground. Like the footprint it exists presently and momentarily.

>beings cannot remember the ideas of others and if we suddenly appeared out of the void we would not remember what happened before.

Well, of course. Memories exist only in the brain (as far as we can tell), and the brain degrades over time, just like everything else.

>>11340772
How does memory contradict momentariness? A physical body can be constructed within the new constructed reality that limits/allows whatever you are to certain happenings that never actually happened in that reality. Nothing can happen in a 'moment' anyway so a memory cannot even be fully accessed in a moment. Very poor attempt to invalidate that. As for the rest, I know nothing of Buddhism so it was lost on me.

bump

>>11340806
Good for you anon

>>11340806
I love that Orthodoxy embraces all pagan traditions and philosophers that do not outright offend Christian sensibilities, and hooks up neatly with Plato, so it's surprisingly logical and straightforward. In a way it's great that the Hindu scriptures preserve such an old literature, but preservation was all they did.

>>11343320
Hinduism doesn't particularly need monolithic agreement though, there is no founder whose original teachings have to be uncovered. As long as you accept the authority of the Vedas, you are a Hindu. The guy who runs a newspaper stand and knows some puranas from his grandmother is a Hindu as much as a monk who constantly meditates and studies the scriptures.

There are issues in Hinduism, but different schools of thought and methods of practice aren't among them.

>>11347462
>but preservation was all they did.
Not really, three strata of the Vedas are commentaries on the earlier fourth one. Hinduism is a constantly evolving religion.

>>11343428
ahahahah, this will always be one of my favorite memes here, your ending was gr8

>>11343428
lol

>>11341653
I like the way you think.

>>11340772
why should the existence of memory disprove momentariness? memories is simply a physical property of the brain and so it can also be copied? i dont quite understand this

>>11342206
this desu. i have stopped getting too caught up in the intellectualising about it, and trying rather to experience it, as it is the only way. getting into yoga and kriya work as that is something that appeals to me in a very practical way.

>>11343108
>Even without considering a Hindu had never tried to convince me the Mahabarata is literal truth.
They won't try and convince you, they will tell you they believe its literally true if they feel comfortable enough

>>11340772
momentariness wasn't taught by the buddha and its a doctrine that applies to the mind stream, not everything. The mind stream is made up of digital moments of consciousness, according to momentariness. If you believe only mind streams exist and you believe in momentariness, then yes everything is momentary. But its still consciousness thats momentary in that case.
Buddha taught everything is impermanent not momentary.

>>11347465
actually there are founders, just not one founder. The rishis of the four vedas are the founders

>>11340795
the vedic +tantric religious traditions.

>>11341653
mystic means acheiving oneness with a deity mentally. Thats not buddhism

>>11342432
>buddhists are right there is no self,
actually, according to modern psychology, there is a self. If you don't have a self, you have narcissistic personality disorder which is a serious mental illness.

>suffering is unimportant, there is no enlightenment

thats not buddhism at all

>>11348691
>mystic means acheiving oneness with a deity mentally. Thats not buddhism
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Britannica/Mysticism
>MYSTICISM (from Gr. μύειν, to shut the eyes; μύστης, one initiated into the mysteries), a phase of thought, or rather perhaps of feeling, which from its very nature is hardly susceptible of exact definition. It appears in connexion with the endeavour of the human mind to grasp the divine essence or the ultimate reality of things, and to enjoy the blessedness of actual communion with the Highest.

>>11348688
In the Hindu view they aren't founders as the Vedas contain eternal truths. In any case I don't know if you can really call the rishis founders, there was no starting point, but a constant evolution from pre-existing aryan mythology to vedic hymns to commentaries on the hymns, to the epics and poems of the classical era, then Puranic Hinduism in the middle ages, and on and on.

Is it just me or do Hindi words and names sound really annoying and obnoxious? But I could just be associating the language with Indians, who simply disgust me.

>>11349101
Indian names, especially in spiritual contexts, all tend to have very literal spiritual meanings. Most names will mean something like "Righteous Action" or "Friend of the Gods" and so on. Your brain may be subtly picking this up and feeling weird by it because most Western names tend to have long since been removed from any spiritual meaning.

>>11342206
You either already know the truth, or it must be revealed to you. A half-truth cannot find its other half. If you follow your definitions to there root, you will be able to grasp nothing, but if you look around you, you will know it is there. No human can find his own truth, and no human could reveal the truth to another, unless True first revealed himself to that man.

Experience cannot grasp anything but itself.

>>11349072
hinduism begin with the four vedas. Upanishads are commentaries on the four vedas. Upanishads, iihasas puranas and all scripture in the vedic tradition are called vedas. They are all based on the rg veda

>>11349029
>buddhism
>divine essence
>ultimate reality
>communion with the highest
>the highest

you're just proving my point

>>11349072
But they are the founders of the vedas at least as we have them. Four vedas are based on an even older tradition though

>>11347462
>I love that Orthodoxy embraces all pagan traditions and philosophers that do not outright offend Christian sensibilities
what kind of hippie orthodox church do you go to?

"Mahasi practice" (as the "vipassana " practice) is a method the Sayadaw developed and taught in the context of the 20th-century movement to revive, popularize the Buddha's practice, to counterbalance against the colonialist (British) pressure to extinguish Buddhism and other aspects of native Burmese culture, the vipassana approach as considered more accessible to lay practitioners. In his writings, Mahasi taught both the jhana ("samatha") and the vipassana approaches to magga-phala fulfilling the path, with some emphasis on the former to make it available to the population, where traditional (monastic) training used more the latter.

For instance, in his in-depth commentary on the Dhammacakkapavattana Sutta (The Great Discourse on the Wheel of Dhamma), for instance, he writes:

"As for accomplishment in concentration, the yogi should take up a samatha (tranquillity) exercise such as ānāpānasati (mindfulness of respiration) and practise it until attainment of jhana or upacara samadhi. If time or opportunity do not permit, the yogi can begin contemplating on the four primary elements by means of which vipassanā khanika samādhi (momentary concentration), which is akin to upacara samadhi, may be attained. This samādhi dispels the hindrances so that purification of mind may be achieved. "

The passage with added emphasis (in red) shows the alternative approaches. Note that in both cases, samadhi plays a crucial role.

Using the sutta definition ( "This, monks, is called Right Concentration") he clearly states that "the concentration involved in the four stages of jhana is defined as the path of Right Concentration."

Further on, he elaborates on, further documents (using both sutta-s and commentarial sources) justifying the vipassanā khanika samādhi approach as a viable alternative to the approach using jhana samadhi:

"(Insight without Absorption)
… some say that insight can be developed only after achieving purification of mind through attaining absorption (jhāna). Without absorption, purification of mind cannot be attained, and so insight cannot be developed. This is a one-sided, dogmatic view. That access concentration in the neighbourhood of absorption, having the capacity to suppress the hindrances, can help attain the purification of view, leading to the development of insight. That many have achieved Arahantship by thus developing insight, is explicitly stated in the Visuddhimagga. In the Suttanta Piṭaka, for example in the Mahāsatipaṭṭhāna Sutta, there is very clear teaching that Arahantship may be achieved by contemplating objects such as body postures, which can only give rise to access concentration. The Anussatiṭṭhāna Sutta of the Aṅguttaranikāya states that the concentration developed by recollecting the virtues of the Blessed One is adequate to use as a basis for the development of higher knowledge up to the state of Arahantship. …

>>11349482
Here we see his rhetorical emphasis (again, added emphasis in red) to support the canonical validity of the alternative, "vipassana" approach. But aside from his mission to present, and promote in the historical context, this approach to help a broader population, it would be a distortion to maintain that he didn't teach, or that he disparaged in any way, the "samatha" approach.

>>11349482
>attend a free two-week S.N. Goenka Vipassana meditation retreat that's funded by donations
>don't tell them that I'm spending most of my time there meditating on the eternal and omnipresent Atman
>pretend that I'm going along with the Vipassana meditations when the teacher takes everyone aside for one-on-one questions and don't reveal that I'm just using it as an opportunity to deeply meditate without distractions while getting free food and board

>>11340772
Momentariness is refuted in the Madhyamaka tradition with almost the exact same logic by Jñānagarbha. Only abhidharmikas believe in momentariness as an absolute truth. The Madhyamaka abandons it because it's a way of speaking of something with "self."

>>11348669
I know many Hindus, some very devout, but none have any interest in converting me. Which is much better than the Christians who bother everyone on the bus.