/lit/ - Literature

>>13713771
Acharya: Ok. I get your point of view about momentariness, impermanence and Anatta. May I ask you a very simple question? When you started the sentence “The Question is immaterial and irrelevant” – it was immaterial and irrelevant to whom? What or who is the Subject to whom those perceptions appeared?

Buddhist Monk: (Enraged) To no one in particular. There is nothing more to this alleged (sic) world’s existence than the co-ordinated flux of wide variety of elemental, co-dependent factors (Dharmas), which bring forth collective experience of world-consciousness in individual and universal aspects. So, the perception occurred to some non-existent entity.

Acharya: Ok! Hypothetically accepting your view, tell me Monk, who is the witness to these arising of dependent elements? Who/what is the witness to the flux? Against what the flux is not static? If you are moving in a train at the same speed with another train, you will see both trains as stationary. A perception of speed requires comparison with a stationary object. Likewise, perception of flux requires a changeless object for measure of standard. Who/What is that?

Buddhist Monk: I object! What is the necessity of a Witness? That too, eternal permanent witness?! No way such a thing exists. People die and their trace vanishes, things get broken, Worlds get destroyed – all without leaving trace. Where is permanence?

Acharya: Hold your breath, Holy Monk. A witness is necessary in order to have a cognition of any phenomenon – take the event of your momentariness or flux. A witness can only say something is transitory or momentary. If there is no Witness, who would perceive and who would make a statement?

>>13713774
Buddhist Monk: If you say there has to be a Witness, who will witness that witness? How would you establish that Witness exists? What you say is wrong because there will be infinite regress. You say a Witness is necessary to claim cognizance. Fine, then tell me, who will say that there is a Witness? Where will this infinite loop end? In your Theory, everything has to be present to make the Witness known. This is nothing but Dependent Origination.

Acharya: Dear Friend, there is no logical necessity (Akanksha) for something to grasp the grasper. The witness stands self-proved.

Buddhist Monk: Even if there is any Witness, that entity; material or intellectual will be momentary, ever-changing, always in flux. So, one can’t say there is any witness at all.

Acharya: You seem to insinuate that everything is momentary and transitional – the flux keeps on changing every nano-second, the reality changing every nanosecond just like waves of sea erase the previous impressions in sand made by the preceding wave. So, who is there who perceives and makes this claim that Nothing is permanent?

And, against what standard you measure permanence relative to impermanence? Everything is impermanent relative to what? If everything if temporary, then how would the concept of any sort of permanence even arise? What is the ground for you to stand on? What is the reference point? Against what measuring rod will you judge impermanence? Monk, Even to say Nothing exists, there has to be a relative plane of Existence. Else against what would you say Nothing exists, if you don’t know what Existence is? And when you say non-being is there – so logically, non-being exists – impermanence is permanently there, you are putting yourself in serious logical snare. Don’t you think by negating everything you are caught in an absurd redux? The entire Theory of Impermanence is erroneous.

Agreed what one sees or perceived is fleeting, transitory. But then how do you create your own locus standi for the transitoriness to be perceived? Who is the witness, the spectator? There has to be One. The primordial ground, the eternal essence, which is at the basis of everything and from which the whole world has arisen (the Brahman of the Upanishads). There is no void, all that exists is Fullness, Brahman. The world is not non-existent (Asat), but it is illusory (Mithya) meaning, it exist, but appears to us other than what is really is because of Ajanan (Ignorance), Avidya (Nescience) and Maya (Illusions).

>>13713783
Buddhist Monk: (Causes digression because there is no reply to this argument) Come on, then where is the proof that there is something permanent, some ever-present continuum?

Acharya: Yes, I will. The answer is in anusmrteh cha [Brahm Sutra - II.ii.25:] meaning “In memory too”. All of us have memories of good experiences, bad ones, many-a-times shared memories. Now let me ask you something Monk. If you say everything is momentary, how do you explain memory? Memory falsifies your entire base. The [Buddhist] doctrine of momentariness must imply momentariness of the perceiver as well as of the perceived, an implication which the phenomenon of memory proves to be wrong and completely false. If both perceived object and the perceiver change, there would be no connect – and there would not be any case for memory! Because the entire scene changes – so every moment Man should rise and ask Who am I? Where am I? If the man who remembers is different from the man who apprehended we would never have such notions as "I saw it." – both ‘I’ (Subject) and ‘it’ (Object) would have changed over the moment. Phenomenon of memory shows that your basic tenets are wrong. The theoretical edifice has been created on a false foundation.

Buddhist Monk: Ok. Fair Point. I can’t argue against that. If I say there is perception, there has to be a perceiver. That’s exactly why I say there is neither an object of perception nor a perceiver. The World is unreal. Do you deny the unreality of the outer world?

Acharya: No. Here I am in full agreement with you. The so-called world is unreal to the extent of what we ordinarily see. The names and forms (Nama-Roopa) are fleeting.

But it does not mean that there is no basis to this unreality. Not “Sarvam kshanikam kshanikam - Sarvam Shunyam Shunyam”!

[That is the fundamental difference between Acharya’s Advait (Singularity of existence) Vedant and the Buddhist Nihilistic (Absence of existence) view]

You are wrong again Friend, because in Vijnanavada, you dwell on ‘only & mere’ perception to make the entire conscious Universe. If you have presumed perception, then whose perception? Perception of what? How can you presume and base your theory on the effect only, without looking at the causes? Such a theory is inadequate, inaccurate and false. The Great Gotama too fell into that trap of not inquiring deep enough. To formulate a simple theory, he ignored to delve into the true cause of suffering – the cause of suffering is not desire or attachment per se – but those are intermediate causes. Like a link in a chain. There is still another layer to the inquiry into desires, attachment, and bondage – that is Avidya and Ajnana. The nescience and ignorance cause desire and attachment. Gotama failed to see the true enemy.

>>13713794
Buddhist Monk: [Fuming) How can you question the Tathagata? He was omniscient.

Acharya: What proof is there that Tathagata Gotama was omniscient? I say No, he was not. And look at me, I am beyond suffering. So, how do you refute me? This Buddhist axiom is completely wrong.

Anyways, our coffee has arrived. Take this cup in your hand Shaman. What do you see?

Buddhist Monk: I see nothing actually. This apparent cup with apparent coffee in it, these, at the deepest layer are made up of discrete individual particles. The deepest level of both the material world and our consciousness is considered to be discrete, separate entities. Thus when we introspect into the deepest layer of our consciousness, we will find that it is composed not from a single homogenous whole but of discrete ‘particles’ – always in flux, always changing – never permanent.

Acharya: (Smiles) Oh, Dear Friend. I get your point. True there is no real cup – the cup is nothing but made up of clay – clay given another form and shape with heat. So, there is clay inside the cup. The cylindrical object (roopa) is the mere appearance which we have named a cup (Nama), there is no Cup as such, but clay in another form. I fully agree when you said You didn’t see a cup. But I disagree when you failed to see the clay in the cup. You can never assume clay out. No matter how deep will you go, there has to be a smaller and smaller entity which will exist. You can not extend the hair-splitting to non-existence. In the final split, something has to exist. And it does exist. Whatever it is, Quantum calls those particles, String people call those Strings, Relativists call those Energy – whatever name you may call, there has to be something that exists. It was there when the Universe started with Big Bang, it was there before it too (else how could the Big Bang singularity have started), it was always there, it is there in everything, it will always be there. We are all made up of Star dust. That star which existed in Big Bang, from which elements got created, from which Space came out. That is the Truth Dear Friend, you can’t assume that out only because you don’t see the subtlest level. You have stopped your quest before you reached the ultimate stage. Yes, particles may be there (Vaishesika friend tells me), particles may be in flux where you wont know what exactly is happening to them (Mister Schrödinger will tell you after 1300 years); but don’t get deluded – there is something that is still more subtle, and pervades everything. Everything can not come out of Nothing. The deepest Truth is Single, homogenous, a whole (Purnam).

>>13713801
Buddhist Monk: Oh. What is the proof, Acharya?

Acharya: Proof. I can offer you Shruti pramana (Scriptures as proof). But you and Tathagat are heretics, you don’t believe in the primacy of Shrutis.

To us, words of Shruti are unquestionable. Even the other day, Mandan Mishra (The great MImanshak) agreed to the same. The Vedas, the Shruti Shastra, the Puranas, Smriti, all teach an ens realissimum (an entity of highest reality) as the primordial cause of all existence, from which everything has arisen and with which it again merges, either temporarily or forever. And that sub-stratum always exists. Know my friend, that is the Only Truth, and Nothing but the Truth – the Sat-Chit-Ananda – the Brahman. “Sarvam khalvidam brahma' that is “All this is indeed Brahman” – and not Sarvam Shunyam Shunyam.

But for you My Friend, here is the argument. Everyone has the notion "I am"; no one can deny the self, because when you go to deny – there would be the self of the denier – who would scale up the denial.

The Acharya Continued:

Brahmaivedam amritam
Purastad brahma pascad brahma
Dakshinatas cottarena
Adhas cordhvam ca prasritam
Brahmaivedam visvam idam varishtham||

Translation:

“That Brahman is Eternal. Brahman in front and Brahman in back, In the South, on the North, Also Overhead and Below - expanded, This Brahman is the Universe, this is the Greatest.”

-Mundaka Upanishad, Mundaka II.Khanda 2.Shloka 12

In other words, that supreme Brahman effulgence spreads throughout both the material and spiritual

That Brahman is known by multifarious names My Friend! People see it as Atma, as Ishwara, as Aum - the Pranav, as Prjnanam, there are many names. But there is nothing in those names. [Om Tat Sat]

I will add here my Friend, your Mahayana Buddhist scripture preaches the existence of the "Tathagata Garbha" (Buddha-Matrix/Essence) within all sentient creatures. This Mahasanghikas (Sect of Buddhism) notion of Tathagata Garbha is so close to Advaitic concept of Atman – the manifestation of Brahman in jeeva. This does not differ from a permanent Atman, though you never accept it!! You accept the Advaitic view by altering the nomenclature!

>>13713810
Buddhist Monk: (Started to leave the debate in fury. Acharya requests him to finish coffee). By Gotama! It’s so hot. My lips are burnt.

Acharya: Stop here. What did you say? Your lips are burnt? You are suffering, are not you? But at the same time you say there is no Soul. So, who is suffering? Buddhaghosa (Classical Theravada) has said that “there is only suffering, but nobody who suffers”, Mahayanist Shantideva has interpreted Buddha that “the person who experiences suffering does not exist”. Is not that a ridiculous proposition? So why all these teachings? For whom? Who were Tathagata’s subjects?

Buddhist Monk: Come on Acharya! You too teach the unreality as cause of suffering and grief and pain. The world is nothing but an idea – a dream-like construct where nothing is real (Idealism in Buddhism/Vijnanavada). And now why do you criticize our unreality while professing yours?

Acharya: No. You have not understood the true essence of Advait then. The unreality of external world that I teach is not based on nothing (It is not Nihilist). My unreality does not base on absence of reality – but on flawed perception of reality. Unlike you, I don’t say there is NO reality at all! I say there is reality and only ONE reality, but the way we perceive or take cognizance is erroneous because of Avidya, Ajnaan and Maya. Once the perception of snake goes away from the rope on the floor, there remain to Snake, only a rope! And there was never a Snake at all, it was rope all throughout. So, the unreal (Snake) was real till the true real (Rope) was realized. After realization, there was never a snake. Likewise, after you realize Brahman, you will experience that there was never a World of otherness. There was always Brahman, here there, inside outside. You are Brahman. It is an absolute identity and this is ultimately proved simply by psychological experience. Shruti has maintained "Tat tvam asi" (That art Thou); "Brahmasmi" (I am Brahman). This is no ‘similarity’ as if we should say, "I am something like Brahman", but full and complete identity, “I am the Brahman” and “Brahman is Me”.

The Great Tathagata saw suffering, but never endevoured to go deep into its causes. He saw the unrealness of the work-a-day, realized it fully, but he did not realize the true cause (Avidya) and the entity beyond the cause (Brahman). He did not see that strand of argument.

>>13713817
Buddhist Monk: Nah! Sakyamuni did not believe in philosophization or polemics. In Shoola Malunkyovada Sutta, the Tathagata has clarified that he won’t venture into questions of philosophy of suffering, but only the method as to end suffering - "The important thing is to get rid of the poisoned arrow (Suffering) that has pierced your heart, not to inquire where it came from (Source of suffering)”.

Acharya: I know. But then, what did the ilks of Nagarjuna, Vasubabdhu, Asanga, Dharmakirti, Aswaghosa, etc. do? Then why all of them attempted complex philosophisation? No wonder that they failed to bring out a holistic Theory of Being due to inherent contradictions and flaws in the basic tenets. Were they not Vipra Bhikshus (Buddhist Bhikshus at exterior, Brahmin Vedists by intellectual disposition) rather than Buddhists?

I also know the Great Buddha avoided philosophical and metaphysical questions. He did not look deep enough. He just sensed the symptoms of the ailment of suffering and not the true cause. Desire, bondage and attachment etc. are symptoms, not causes. But the Vedas and the Shruti inquired deeper – into the Source of suffering, and the method of Vedant interprets Shruti correctly by pointing out the real causes being ‘Avidya’ (Nescience), and false imputation (Adhyasa) due to Maya.

Buddhist Monk: Acharya!

Acharya: No, don’t say Nothing ever again! The Great Buddhist teachers did ‘exist’ and so did Tathagata. If you firmly believe in Tathagata; then you believe in his existence too! Their mortal embodiments were temporal, but teachings eternal, their thought eternal. That Jnana is eternal. That’s where Brahman shines. It is the light by which everything is seen, the light of which the sun and moon are pale reflections. It is not only real but so egregiously real that the work-a-day world fades into mist beside it.

Buddhist Monk: Starts to leave muttering No, No, No…..

[The end]

bump

strawman

straw af lmao

imagine filling out 15 minutes of captcha for this

gj coolie

Lmao tl;dr what you think we read on this board? Lmao

get back to closing those JIRA tickets, amit

not reading this fanfic lol

>>13714008
>>13714128
>>13714136
>>13714150
>>13714281

Yall are idiots, this is good.

>>13714305
you are an idiot, this is bad.

>>13714305
Not an argument. Did you finish those JAVA hotfixes yet?

I am reminded of that video of the parrot shouting into a little plastic cup and being delighted to hear its own voice.

>>13713774
>There is nothing more to this alleged (sic) world’s existence than...
>artificial (sic)
lmao

>>13713771
sage
don't bump low quality bait

bump.... rare quality post on /lit/ nowadays.

>>13714506
If u have nothing to contribute here then go somewhere else.

Interesting post. Bump.

>buddhist monk (enraged)

>>13713771
>a cup of coffee
Not even gonna bother reading the rest. I bet this was written by a woman

>my opponent dumb
>me smart
it becomes a circlejerk about the side represented positively and puts buddhists on the defensive instead of an equal debate field
>>13715211
this

>>13715799
Heh. You're alright
https://youtu.be/azSz4gcAk-c

>>13715836
what is this

they could be drinking something better than coffee

doesn't right view remove ajnana
wtf is three lines talking about

>>13713771
>Pajeet gobbledygook

Thanks for this OP

>>13713771
>The [Buddhist] doctrine of momentariness must imply momentariness of the perceiver as well as of the perceived, an implication which the phenomenon of memory proves to be wrong and completely false. If both perceived object and the perceiver change, there would be no connect – and there would not be any case for memory! Because the entire scene changes – so every moment Man should rise and ask Who am I? Where am I?
I feel I must be misunderstanding you.
People forget and gain new memories all the time?

>>13713771
>>13713774
>>13713783
>>13713794
>>13713801
>>13713810
>>13713817
>>13713822
autism. die in a fire op

>>13713771
POL Rules! not your Temple, Mosque, Synagogue, Church, or whatever.
All of You cunts Take your Religions elsewhere. This is POL, Politics!

>>>/pol/224572379
>>>/pol/224572379
>>>/pol/224572379
>>>/pol/224572379

YHWH Allah
(LORD God)

>>13714385
that's fucking hilarious kudos

>>13713771
>Adi Shankara debates a Buddhist

>>13715211
Kek. This

Strange Visitor:
If there is no motion, there is no mind in anyone about anything anywhere.
And on the other hand, if we admit that all things are in flux and motion, we shall remove mind itself from the number of existing things by this theory also.
We certainly must contend by every argument against him who does away with knowledge or reason or mind and then makes any dogmatic assertion about anything.
Then the philosopher, who pays the highest honor to these things, must necessarily, as it seems, because of them refuse to accept the theory of those who say the universe is at rest, whether as a unity or in many forms, and must also refuse utterly to listen to those who say that being is universal motion; he must quote the children's prayer, “all things immovable and in motion,” and must say that being and the universe consist of both.

>>13717604
Kys retard its related

>>13714305
>the world is temporary but really there is this promordial existence beyond it you can not see

Deep...

bump

>>13718045
I bet these two dullards had this conversation on 4/20

>>13718045
>but really there is this primordial existence beyond it you can not see
*as a normal object of thought but which can be nonetheless directly experienced as Bliss through spiritual realization

>>13713771
Shankara: "can I copy your homework?"
Buddha: "yeah just change it up a bit so it doesn't look obvious you copied"

they had trains back then?

>>13713771
Did you write this OP? Can't believe that anyone who would be popular enough to get others to read their work would produce such trash. The Buddhist in this story is anything but Buddhist, he resembles more a Western caricature.

All of it is BS, but for example the last argument with which the Buddhist is defeated is especially so. Of course the dhamma is eternal, as is nibbana. Of course ignorance is the cause of suffering, and adhyasa and maya are both Buddhist concepts.

>>13720925
>The Buddhist in this story is anything but Buddhist
point out where he mischaracterizes buddhism

>>13717205
if you are impermanent, how can you wake up every morning and remember that you're the same person you were yesterday, and the day before, and the day before, etc.

>>13720925
It was written by some guy on quora

https://www.quora.com/How-did-Adi-Shankara-defeat-Buddhist-monks-in-India-Are-there-any-fundamental-advantages-to-Hinduism-which-he-could-use-to-win-the-argument

>adhyasa and maya are both Buddhist concepts.
Like much else in Buddhism, those concepts actually predate Buddha and have a Hindu origin. The doctrine of Maya is clearly found in the pre-Buddhist Brihadaranyaka Upanishad where it states in line 2.5.19 that the Lord appears as manifold because of his maya. The word maya appears in the Vedas as well. Adhyasa (superimposition) as a word isn't used in the early Upanishads but it is still clearly discussed as a concept when it talks in the pre-Buddhist Chandogya Upanishad line 6.1.4. and many others where it says: "By knowing a single lump of earth you know all objects made of earth. All changes are mere words, (existing) in name only. But earth is the reality", when it says the transformation is mere speech and exists in name only it is talking about the superimposition of name and form by people/ignorance upon the undifferentiated uniform reality.

>>13720925
>he resembles more a Western caricature.
Buddhism was created by the west, as a caricature.

>>13713783
>The world is not non-existent (Asat), but it is illusory (Mithya) meaning, it exist, but appears to us other than what is really is because of Ajanan (Ignorance), Avidya (Nescience) and Maya (Illusions).
Kant called, he wants his philosophy back.

>>13713810
>“That Brahman is Eternal. Brahman in front and Brahman in back, In the South, on the North, Also Overhead and Below - expanded, This Brahman is the Universe, this is the Greatest.”
Hermetics called, they want their philosophy back.

>>13713774
>I get your
Stopped. Learn to write.

>>13718045
>>13719418
I bet you suck Kant's cock when he says the exact same with German words.

>>13721801
An Indian wrote it on Quora.com

>>13721768
>>13721789
I'm sorry lads but the Upanishads were talking about this stuff a long long time before Kant and Hermeticism did

>>13721851
Sorry bro, but Hermes lived 8000 years before Plato, while the oldest Indian teachings are from 1700–1100 BCE

>>13721814
Yes, and he didn't smoke weed, these idiots def did

>>13721860
That's only when Vyasa split the Vedas into 4 parts, they go all the way back to Aryan Hyperborea circa 11,000-10,000 BC, a ways before Hermes

>>13713771
https://discord.gg/az3CXnJ

>>13720713
reverse this with the pre-Buddhist Upanishads and Buddha tbqh

>>13722700
One was born at AD 788, the other was born at AD 150, I don't see why it should be reversed

>>13722715
It should be reversed because the order goes like this

1) 9th-7th century BC - the pre-Buddhist Brihadaranyaka and Chandogya Upanishads (possibly a few others as well)
2) 6th century BC - Buddha
3) 1st-5th century AD - Mahayana thinkers
4) ~500 AD - Gaudapada and 8th century AD Shankara

The Upanishads were the first texts (with the exception of certain portions of the Vedas) that anyone is aware of that were talking about all of these ideas. Buddhism largely comes from the early Upanishads, most of the key tenets of Buddhism are found in them, everything from monasticism, abandoning desire, disidentification with the psycho-physical aggregate, the notion that all phenomena are perishable, that the Absolute is unborn and unconditioned, that it is indescribable by speech and cannot be known as an object of thought, the list goes on and on.

There is abundantly more evidence for Buddha ripping from the Upanishads than for Shankara doing so vis a vis any Buddhist thinker. All of the stuff that people accuse Shankara of taking is easily found in the Upanishads, and mostly the pre-Buddhist ones at that. I've pointed this out to people before and showed them the exact line in the text where the Upanishad says the same shit earlier but they typically have no response because they have no interest in discussion but are just motivated by their bitterness to disparage Advaita.

I presume you mean Nagarjuna with the date of 150. Which ideas do you think Shankara took from him? The unborn doctrine? The Brihadaranyaka already says that Brahman is unborn and describes creation/multiplicity as unreal, the Chandogya already says that transformation, name and form etc exist in mind only and are not actually real, the Chandogya also ridicules the idea that existence can come out of non-existence, the Gita also says that the eternal/immutable never changes its own nature, right there between those few quotes among many others you have the basis for non-origination. What about the two truths? Again, the Brihadaranyaka describes Brahman as 'the truth of truth', the Mundaka Upanishad mentions a lower and a higher knowledge. Multiple levels of truth are implicit in the doctrine of Maya anyway, which predates Buddhism and appears in the early Upanishads. You can't have Maya causing illusion that presents itself to us as empirical reality without understanding that the truth behind the veil of Maya is the absolute truth and that whatever caused by Maya is only empirically or conditionally true. It's a conclusion that anyone who takes 2 minutes to think about it would come to, it's inseparable from the concept of Maya/Illusion, I don't know why people insist that it's some unique insight for Nagarjuna to talk about this.

>>13722853
you seem very passionate about Advaita. Do you ever associate with others with similar interests in real life? I imagine that it would be much more rewarding to spend time associating with real-life Advaitins and helping guide earnest spiritual seekers in a person-to-person context than to try the same on 4chan

>>13721936
8000 years before Plato is 10,500 B.C., that is not "a ways before"

>>13721936
If we're going to use non-secular stuff, Hermes goes all the way back to 20,000 B.C.

>>13722949
I don't think he would have a good time to real-life Advaitins when he is always closing down every argument, every concept of religion to maliciously hasty thinking such as "two truths is nothing because Brihadaranyaka describes Brahman as 'the truth of truth'"

>>13722949
>Do you ever associate with others with similar interests in real life?
Yes, I have a circle of friends and associates who also enjoy studying metaphysics, eastern thought etc
>I imagine that it would be much more rewarding to spend time associating with real-life Advaitins and helping guide earnest spiritual seekers in a person-to-person context
Maybe so, but I'm pursuing raising a family and having a career, the spiritual stuff is just something I take an interest in on the side. Having read all about X Y and Z though, the least I can do when lurking 4chan is to expose misinformation and call into question certain unfounded assumptions that might otherwise confuse people about the truth of things.

>>13723297
If you have a real argument to make in reply to my post than I'm all ears but you don't make yourself or the poster you identify with look better or make me look worse when you misrepresent my point. There was nothing malicious in that. If you think that Nagarjuna's idea is somehow a unique insight not already found in the Upanishads than explain how it is not already contained in the doctrine of maya as I pointed out? As I also mentioned Shankara has other Upanishad verses to support it as well, all of them pre-dating Nagarjuna.

>>13721880
he was just a caffeine-brain coffee addict

>>13724808
With or without the butter?

>>13724818
probably without, Joe Rogan wasn't alive to promote it back then

>>13724837
Fair, I agree, it's probably why he lived so long

>>13713794
>[That is the fundamental difference between Acharya’s Advait (Singularity of existence) Vedant and the Buddhist Nihilistic (Absence of existence) view]
lmao Shankara was such a retard 'hurr boodism is nayalistick bro!!1'

I can't believe advaitafag takes him this seriously, kys OP

¤

>>13725289
What's the main argument against advaita/for it? Genuinely curious

Ramana Maharshi is based as fuck and teaches literally nothing else than the proper Buddhist traditions do either. Who the fuck cares if you call it true self or no self, in the end it's the same thing

>>13725289
>OMG Shankara is such a dumb retard even though he completely obliterated the ideas of two prominent schools of Buddhism at the time and despite that not a single Buddhist thinker since then has ever been able to return the blow by refuting anything or by pointing out anything as being logically inconsistent in Advaita
>lol he is so dumb because he didn't extensively study Madhyamika writings and probably just debated with a few monks representing it before criticizing it, don't you understand that he was under some obligation despite being a Hindu to spend years studying and practicing Madhyamika teachings before passing judgement on it!
>forget that nihilism is a common attack on Madhyamaka that everyone from 1st millennium Theravadins to modern scholars have accused it of! Nagarjuna defends himself against the charge of nihilism in his Vigrha-Vyavarttani by explaining that he affirms empirical reality while only negating the ultimate reality of it, and that he is not negating everything as non-existent and that it would be nihilistic to negate everything as unreal but Nagarjuna only negates the relative and phenomenal but this is not nihilism because Nirvana is not negated!
>Nevermind that this is basically the same thing as the 'Not this, not this' negation already found in the Brihadaranayaka Upanishad nearly a thousand years earlier! It's like totally different because like *hits blunt* it's like empty or something (coughs). Yeah! it's empty, nevermind that Upanishadic moksha is empty of phenomenal content and is just pure bliss, and that if I insist that the Madhyakama Parinirvana isn't spiritual absolutism and is empty of everything then I have no way to distinguish it from a nihilistic void or complete non-existence, I'm totally not trying to have my cake and eat it too by claiming Madhyamaka isn't nihilistic but then not accepting the interpretation of it as Absolutism which is what rescues it from nihilism!

If Shankara has actually taken the time to study Madhyamaka well instead of debating some of its representatives he would have rightfully pointed out that there is nothing to refute, as Nagarjuna didn't advance any arguments purporting to establish it on logic but only attempted to refute other views (none of which included a refutation of the Upanishadic/Advaitic view), and that it's basically crypto-Upanishadic Absolutism with a fig-leaf of emptiness (but faithful to Buddha's crypto-Upanishadic Absolutism at least!)

>>13725500
Advaita is not concerned at all with proving itself logically to skeptics, they never proselytized like Buddhism or the Abrahamics did and initiations into traditional forms of Advaita are strictly reserved for people who enter into a life of near-possessionless monasticism. Advaita is first and foremost concerned with the correct exegesis of the Upanishads and upholds the view of them reflecting eternal and infallible truths. Despite frequently making use of formidable logic to interpret them and to attack the internal consistency of other schools Shankara condemned human reason independent of scriptures as fallible and uses the word 'logician' as a pejorative in his works, occasionally attacking them as fools who mislead people similar how Plato attacked the sophists.

Nevertheless, an ontological argument centering around establishing Advaita through logic is found in the Mandukya Karika of Gaudapada. If you are interested in reading it I would recommend reading Nikhilananda's translation which includes Shankara's commentary as well as tertiary notes by Nikhilananda. Coman's book 'The Method of Advaita' also includes Gaudapada's Karika with running commentary by Comans that draws from Shankara's commentary. There were also various other dialectical arguments for proving Advaita through logic developed by later post-Shankara Advaitins like Sriharsa, Nrsimhashrama, and Madhusudana Sarasvati. Not many of their works have been translated although one occasionally can find a translation of them from a small press and read summaries about their ideas in the various books and dissertations about post-Shankara Advaita dialectics such as Bhattacharyya Shastri's book.

>>13713822
>I also know the Great Buddha avoided philosophical and metaphysical questions. He did not look deep enough
That's sort of silly to say.

>>13725892
Thank you for your extensive comment, I'll definitely check out some of the works you rec'd

>Advaita are strictly reserved for people who enter into a life of near-possessionless monasticism

How would the West's perversion be explained by this strict rule? I encounter people who say they follow Advaita's teachings on the daily, yet how can this be truthfully his teachings?

>>13725892
not-self != nihilism

Nibbana is explicitly a state of permanence

People like you do nothing but masturbate over their own confusion

>>13725940
>nihilism
But doesn't negating the self mean that you disregard aspects of life that are reputedly meaningful?

What was the view/opinion of shankara regarding free will?
Knowledgeable anon, guide me.

>>13713771
Then they both die and go to hell because they didn't accept Jesus as their saviour.

>>13725617
>84 replies
>not one mention of madhyamaka or nagarjuna from anyone but yourself
>yet you continue to preemptively rail against its potential attacks (which no one is even presenting) against advaita at every chance you get
I'm gonna say it
rent free

>>13726501
In that post I was responding to someone who called Shankara a retard for describing the Madhyamaka school as nihilistic. Shankara grouped the Buddhists schools of his time into the realists (early Theravada), the idealists (Yogachara) and the nihilists (Madhyamaka). It's a common complaint by people into Madhyamaka that other people misunderstand it as nihilist so it was a reasonable inference to make that the poster was upset specifically about him labeling Madhyamika as nihilist.

>>13725940
>not-self != nihilism
I never said that, I don't know why you assumed that was my reasoning, all I did is say that Shankara condemned Madhyamaka specifically (and not Buddhism in general) as nihilism

>>13722700
Cope

>>13725929
>I encounter people who say they follow Advaita's teachings on the daily, yet how can this be truthfully his teachings?
You can study, believe in, practice the teachings of and benefit from Advaita without being initiated as a monastic sannyasin. Guenon for example was self-taught and never was initiated into it but Vedanta nonetheless remained central to his thought for the rest of his life after he studied it. Anyone who has read traditional Advaita texts such as Shankara's writings should be able to tell you that moksha is held to be almost impossible to attain independently without renunciation and the guidance of a qualified teacher, with the possible tiny exception of 1 in a billion people like Ramana Maharshi. At the same time, it's not all or nothing, one can receive significant spiritual benefits from it without attaining moksha. Advaitic texts contain all sorts of meditations and spiritual practices that one can do amidst work/school and having a householders life. Even on top of this some people find that once you understand it well enough it permanently makes you more blissful and content even without doing additional practices like meditations. Like most other Hindu sects, Advaita holds that doing well spiritually, having very positive karmic effects, being a pure-hearted person etc has positive benefits for the next life and makes you transmigrate into very auspicious birth-circumstances where you can be exceptionally intelligent, even more pure-hearted, talented at X, the child of spiritually advanced people etc. even the attainment of heavenly realms lasting until the end of this cycle of universal manifestation; so it's not useless if you dont go all the way in this life. Shankara also in his bhagavad-gita commentary approves of the alternative paths of things like karma-yoga for people who are not fit for becoming monastics and he says that these paths while not being as efficacious as monasticism can still indirectly lead to Brahman if done properly.

>>13726252
This is a good article on the topic

http://www.advaita-academy.org/freedom-of-will-and-action-in-shankaras-philosophy/

>>13727314
Thank You.

>>13723302
A good monk should remain celibate.

>>13713771
Primus: hey, hows your day
Secundus: your question is futile and you are without wisdom.

The monk sounds like a right cunt.

>>13715211
They do get royal pissed like every other apologist when cornered and beaten.

Their cope so as to seem enlightened is to laugh you off:
"Hahaha, typical of what a (insert their label of you) here," then avoid further engagement based in that.

Or say that debate is useless, go an "practice." If practice is not fruitful, then i must be lying or not practicing.

Or they encourage you to "empty your cup before it can be filled," aka, throw out everything you think, take in everything i think.

OP made a strawmonk; a real buddhist monk would have swerved cope after the opener.

Dont debate buddhists. Do your own reading, save your coffee.

>Ahh Gautama the coffee is hot
OP, trying too hard.

>>13727485
good thing I'm not a monk then, also, tell that to Culadasa lol

All I see are non-sequiturs and fallacies of composition and faulty generalizations.

I'd rather be a muslim than a Godless buddhist trying to escape reality.

>>13713771
Oh god. What the fuck is this.

>>13726037
Buddhism is something very much alike the self-overcoming of nihilism that Nietzsche talked about. You give up looking for meaning through conceptual thought (nihilism would be looking for meaning and coming to the conclusion that there is none) and then 'discover' a natural state of being, which is imbued with the unconditioned. This gives you meaning, but of another sort entirely.

>>13727957
/lit/ and /his/ have been flooded with LARPing refugees from cripchan's /christ/.

>>13727946
The guy who wrote this took liberties to make it more amusing and to represent the Buddhist position as more irrational, but you'd have to be a real brainlet to be familiar with Shankara's arguments and still dispute that he debunked as nonsense the Sarvistavada doctrine of momentariness and the subjective idealism of late Yogachara, see pic related in >>13725617

>in b4 b-b-but that wasn't real Buddhism
yes and hindsight is 20/20, it's funny how Advaita doesn't have the same problem of illogical teachings that its modern keyboard warriors have to disavow

>>13728113
>yes and hindsight is 20/20
Ironic considering Shankara based his whole philosophy on hundreds of years of buddhist material (madhyamika), yes hindsight is indeed a wonderful thing mr. 'im not a keyboard warrior for his holiness eddy shankara but I shitpost about him all day for some reason'

>>13728152
>Shankara based his whole philosophy on hundreds of years of buddhist material (madhyamika),
Complete nonsense, there isn't a single thing you can point to as evidence of this that isn't already found in the Upanishads which is where Shankara gets those ideas from. This is because Buddhism comes from the Upanishads and much of Buddhist philosophy elaborates on these same concepts. Shankara gets them straight from the source, like the Buddha did, whereas Madhyamika obtains them filtered through the lenses of Buddha's spinoff version of Upanishadic teachings.