/lit/ - Literature

>>14337363
>Is Buddhism descended from Hinduism
kind of
>Can they be considered the same?
no

>>14337363
Only autists, western atheists and LARPers actually care about these questions. The truth is that it really doesn't matter.
I really don't get why some people on this board get so caught up in such questions.

>>14337363
Yes and no

>>14337363
Same background (samsara, rebirth, karma, goal to escape rebirth).
Wildly different conclusions (there is no God, no Brahman, no Absolute in Buddhism.)
To say they are the same is to be unaware of the doctrines of both traditions.

>>14337363
Buddha didnt like Hindus blind obedience to the Vedas. He did like some of the Vedas ideas and incorporated it into his own beliefs.

Ancient India 101:

>there is nothing
>nameless sages see the world and develop rites to organize collective life
>a tradition is established
>A LOT of time passes
>more nameless sages come and put the practical aspects of ritual knowledge in written form
>that tradition develops
>out of this development a new social world is gradually created
>tradition is no longer able to deal with this new world
>social crisis
>under the table, tradition opens a space outside its traditional ritual constraints
>these individuals create their own ways to face the social crisis
>tradition allows them to thrive for some time
>some of them become a collective religious movement
>tradition assimilates all the finds of these individual ways
>after this expansion, all extra-traditional spaces are closed or segregated
>a stronger tradition thrives and expands overtime, to this day

Vedic India: the first tradition
Buddhism: one of the collective movements created out of the individual ways.
Hinduism: the new tradition, after assimilating the individual non-traditional ways

>>14337363
i used to really be into buddhism but i don't like it at all now. it's not even a religion. it's the antithesis of christianity. it prioritizes becoming a buddha (self improvement of the self) over the wellbeing of others. in buddhism, helping others is a result of being enlightened, or helping others is a path to becoming enlightened. it all comes down to putting the self above others despite buddhism claiming that "there is no self". buddhism is religious anarchism. there is no order. it denies order. it cannot function in a society. a religion about the individual cannot thrive. hinduism is cool though

>>14337363
Yes and no

>Buddhists were aware of the existence of Hinduism
>Used some of their teachings but not others

>>14337516
>goal to escape rebirth
>no absolute
i think you are wrong. the goal to scape is the absolute. different names its not important.

>>14337850
“Birth and death” as truly inherently existent events with a being who is actually born and dies, are dependent on ignorance. They aren’t escaped by leaving the ultimately real samsaric world and going to the “magical Nirvana realm of immortality.” Birth and death aren’t escaped by making Samsara disappear to realize some otherworldly Absolute. The Arahants were said to be free from suffering while they were alive, they realized Nirvana while they were alive, not after they died. Rebirth is escaped with the absence of reification of existence and non-existence, with the removal of avidya, ignorance. When avidya is removed, there is no more notion of ultimately real birth and death. The formula goes “Dependent on ignorance.....” and from this arises notions of self and world, birth and death, being and non-being.
So yes, no Absolute to escape or disappear into. It’s different.

>>14337363
I meditated in the noting style of vipassana for twenty minutes just now and made some helpful notes of a minor rapture, the three characteristics, and various bodily sensations. I almost made it to the arising and passing away where vipassana formally begins, if I am not mistaken about what stage I am at. Is this about right for twenty minutes? I am very excited to formally begin vipassana and make it through first path, and optimistic about my capabilities.

>>14337706
>it's the antithesis of christianity.
And that's a good thing.

>>14337706
>it prioritizes becoming a buddha (self improvement of the self) over the wellbeing of others
in Mahayana, the purpose of awakening is to be of service from others, to help free all beings

>>14337917
sounds good
if you move to 30m or more you’ll probably progress even faster

>>14337906
what i mean is that the conclusion is the same. "escape rebirth". if you stop rebirth from joining a supergod, preaching another god or inside of an all being and no-being realm. or like you said being so absolutely enlightened that you dont have any attachment to life or self. the conclusion is the same. the absolute is in all of them, making a goal to life is an absolute itself. even if the goal is deconstruct life to the point there is no life anymore. its an absolute still.

>>14338039
not what I meant by “Absolutism”
>In idealist philosophy, the Absolute is "the sum of all being, actual and potential".[1] In monistic idealism, it serves as a concept for the "unconditioned reality which is either the spiritual ground of all being or the whole of things considered as a spiritual unity.
No such thing in Buddhist apart from a minority of highly controversial later schools.

>>14337516
This.

Also, Hinduism today is developed mostly after Buddha's popularity. During Buddha's time, there were no Hinduism, there were various vedic schools but nothing too coherent or too cohesive.

>>14338053
buddhists want to stop the karmic wheel because they think is the truth. that believe in the truth and in a procedure to reach the truth is the absolutism.
i agree is a twisted and subtle absolutism. but i think its still in them.

>>14338053
so buddhism is really just glorified atheism?

>>14338099
No. Glorified atheism is taking shit in your bathroom and not the toilet.

>>14337363
Yes the same way atheism is descended from Christianity, except atehists are retards while buddhists are retards with very sophisticated mumbojumbo.
Enlightenment is nothing more then selfimposed tunnelvision to live in the moment and dont bother with things you are not currently engaged in, so that you become a good consumer who doesn't question the world arond him but instead lives immersed in it.
>inb4 muh detachment
The only thing buddhists are detached from is responsibility.

>>14338140
but my toilet and my shower are in the same room anon, what does that mean?

>>14337652
>buddha
the first Cafeteria Hindu

>>14337363
They are both wastes of time.
Buddhism is basically navelgazing about shitvthat doesn't matter.
Hinduism is based but its filled with retarded indo-aryan larpers which just poisons the well.

>>14337363
Yes. Shankara basically incorporated buddhism into hinduism and ever since then being a buddhist is like being the poor man's hindu.

>>14338156
It means watch where you step.

>>14338099
it is atheist but it isn’t materialist or nihilist
It also accepts a huge cosmology of different realms of existence, including angels, heavens, hells, demons, ghosts, and more.
It isn’t materialist or nihilist but it isn’t Absolutist, monist or theist either. The Buddha said that Absolutism and Nihilist materialism were two of the views that afflicted ignorant samsaric minds naturally include towards because of their delusion.

>>14338246
>atheist
Well, they do accept the existence of Gods but they don’t really have control or ommipotence or anything. They’re deluded and stuck in samsara just like humans are, and they’ve been born in the God realms as a result of past life karma.
There’s no god in the monotheistic sense though.
There’s also no impersonal universal substratum like Brahman, either.

spoonfeed me, please, anons.
I want to read the sacred text of hinduism and buddhism.
Please, post an edition of these texts, I always drop the spaghetti because there are like a million variations of those texts. I just want a volume with the entire thing, like the bible.

>>14338053
>No such thing in Buddhist apart from a minority of highly controversial later schools.
Except of course for Yogachara which is hugely influential in East Asian Buddhism and upon which Chan Buddhism was originally based

>>14337516
Buddhism does not deny the existence of a supreme God, does it? I had thought it simply did not address it.

Also, the Dhammapada references Indra. Why?

>>14338252

http://estudantedavedanta.net/Eight-Upanisads-Vol-1.pdf
http://estudantedavedanta.net/Eight-Upanisads-vol2.pdf
https://archive.org/details/Brihadaranyaka.Upanishad.Shankara.Bhashya.by.Swami.Madhavananda
https://archive.org/details/Shankara.Bhashya-Chandogya.Upanishad-Ganganath.Jha.1942.English

>>14337917
I meditated for another 20 minutes and may have crossed the arising and passing away into knowledge of appearance as terror. I'm hoping to make first path expediently.

>>14338252
For Hinduism read Upanishads (translated by Patrick Olivelle). Buddhism has the ridiculously long Pali canon (57 volumes), which is supposedly the sayings of the Buddha but there is a good anthology of it called In the Buddha's Words.

>>14338307
Which was originally “Appearance-Only” with the work of Vasubandhu, and not exclusively “Mind-Only” as some sort of Idealism (the latter view being controversial even amongst Indian Yogacharins). The primary influence on Chan of course reflecting the view of Vasubandhu and the practical uses of Yogachara, more than any adoption of an Absolute: considering the fact that the most prolific Chan masters like Bodhidharma and Dogen strictly adhered to the Prajnaparamita view, taking the Madhyamikan view of Buddha-nature (that all beings are originally pure, and all dharmas are originally unarisen, that all beings have the potential for Buddhahood) as definitive, while using Yogachara’s emphasis on the mind only to point out it’s significance and empty nature, going as far as to use terms like “No Mind.” That’s not to mention the Sixth Patriarch of Chan, Huineng, author of one of the most prolific Chan texts ever written, the Platform Sutra, who realized Nirvana upon hearing the Diamond Sutra (a Prajnaparamita text which rejects Absolutism).

>>14338099
>>14338246
>>14338246

94:11.10.2. The many Buddhas. It was reasoned that, if Gautama had come to the peoples of India, then, in the remote past and in the remote future, the races of mankind must have been, and undoubtedly would be, blessed with other teachers of truth. This gave rise to the teaching that there were many Buddhas, an unlimited and infinite number, even that anyone could aspire to become one—to attain the divinity of a Buddha.

94:11.11.3. The Absolute Buddha. By the time the number of Buddhas was approaching infinity, it became necessary for the minds of those days to reunify this unwieldy concept. Accordingly it began to be taught that all Buddhas were but the manifestation of some higher essence, some Eternal One of infinite and unqualified existence, some Absolute Source of all reality. From here on, the Deity concept of Buddhism, in its highest form, becomes divorced from the human person of Gautama Siddhartha and casts off from the anthropomorphic limitations which have held it in leash. This final conception of the Buddha Eternal can well be identified as the Absolute, sometimes even as the infinite I AM.

94:11.12.While this idea of Absolute Deity never found great popular favor with the peoples of Asia, it did enable the intellectuals of these lands to unify their philosophy and to harmonize their cosmology.

>>14338316
It directly denies such a supreme monotheistic god in many texts.
In Buddhism, Indra (sometimes called Sakka or Sakra) is not immortal, but was born due to his karma from a previous life, and he will pass from his status into another birth in another realm eventually. In the Pali Canon, Indra (Sakka in Pali) is a stream-winner who bows to the Buddha’s wisdom and authority.

>>14338376
94:12.2.Gradually the concept of God, as contrasted with the Absolute, began to appear in Buddhism. Its sources are back in the early days of this differentiation of the followers of the Lesser Road and the Greater Road. It was among the latter division of Buddhism that the dual conception of God and the Absolute finally matured. Step by step, century by century, the God concept has evolved until, with the teachings of Ryonin, Honen Shonin, and Shinran in Japan, this concept finally came to fruit in the belief in Amida Buddha.

94:12.3.Among these believers it is taught that the soul, upon experiencing death, may elect to enjoy a sojourn in Paradise prior to entering Nirvana, the ultimate of existence. It is proclaimed that this new salvation is attained by faith in the divine mercies and loving care of Amida, God of the Paradise in the west. In their philosophy, the Amidists hold to an Infinite Reality which is beyond all finite mortal comprehension; in their religion, they cling to faith in the all-merciful Amida, who so loves the world that he will not suffer one mortal who calls on his name in true faith and with a pure heart to fail in the attainment of the supernal happiness of Paradise.

94:12.4.The great strength of Buddhism is that its adherents are free to choose truth from all religions; such freedom of choice has seldom characterized a Urantian faith. In this respect the Shin sect of Japan has become one of the most progressive religious groups in the world;

>>14338325
>>14338350
blessed be thou, friends

>>14338376
>>14338392
>Urantia
fringe new age
not even the traditionalists here like it

>>14338391
Isn’t that kinda against the hinduist idea of Brahman? Or did those ideas develop separately.

>>14337363
Yes. Buddhism was originally a continuation of the Upanishadic Hindu teachings.
Like Christians, Buddhists are hypocrites because they believe their religion alone is the path to escape the Samsara. They claim to be the only non-absolutist religion but then exalt themselves over all other religions by saying their "religion" or "way of life" is the only way to transcend the Samsara.

Most Buddhists have never read the Upanishads and even if they did they would be too stupid to make the link between Brahman and Sunyatta

>>14338337
I meditated for a third twenty-minute session and found myself at knowledge of appearance as disgust. I hope I can make first path tonight, and I might know when I first crossed the arising and passing away. Joy!

>>14338410
It is completely against the Hindu idea of Brahman. Such an idea is incompatible with Buddhism which rejects both Absolutism and nihilism. In his lifetime, the Buddha outright rejected the monotheistic idea of Brahman, and this is evident in the canonical texts.

>>14338413
Sunyata is dependent on conventions and isn’t an existent substratum independent of them. The conventional world is not considered unreal in Buddhism. That is the entire point of Sunyata.
Most neo-Vedantic Hindu nationalists have never read the early Buddhist texts or the Mahayana sutras and even if they did they would be too stupid to see the difference between Brahman and Sunyata.

>>14338399
>fringe new age
I guess in your mind thats synonymous with 'untrue'
but thats a logical fallacy,
calling something 'fringe new age' is not a magic wand that automatically discredits something as being false.

>>14338399
>not even the traditionalists here like it
So what? Traditionalists are fallible humans, their opinions are not a barometer for truth.
And its not surprising they reject things outside of their tradition.

>>14338450
>Thinking I support Hindu Nationalism
>Thinking I support Brahminism
>Thinking I support Neo-Vedism
You make it sound like the Upanishads were a continuation of Vedic teachings, and not an end to them....

Hindi Nationalists and Buddhist Absolutists are just as bad as eachother

>>14337363
Upanishads > Buddhist Texts.

The Buddha was just a seething brainlet who couldn't understand the enlightened Vedic sages

>>14338307
>Chan is monist/absolute idealist
I guess that’s why every Chan temple has chanted the Heart of Prajnaparamita Sutra daily since the school’s founding lol

>>14337706
Are you retarded? The whole point of becoming a buddha is to put others before yourself. Furthermore, the entire Tibetan government is based on an individual. The reincarnating Dalai Lama.

>>14337675
based.

>>14338437
>Buddhism isn't Absolutism
>Buddhism is the only religious worldview that can achieve escape from the samsara

>>14338511
as long as you admit he didn’t teach the Upanishadic doctrine, fine by me.

>>14338251
I thought the god realms were just spruced up names for princes and shit. People who experience a different world than the rest of us due to circumstance of birth.

Can Buddhatards itt tell me how reincarnation is possible if there is no Brahman or Soul?

The whole point of reincarnation is that your self is put into another body.
If there is no self, how can "you" be reincarnated?

>>14338561
>>14338039
>>14338413
Absolutism in this context is referring to the idea of a spiritual Absolute/God/Godhead, an eternal, unchanging, metaphysical substratum underlying all of reality, which one “merges” or “becomes one with” in spiritual realization ex: monistic idealism.

>>14338373
>Which was originally “Appearance-Only” with the work of Vasubandhu
original Yogachara is Asanga, Vasubandhu was Asanga's half-brother. Asanga came first and established original Yogachara in his works, Vasubandhu only became Yogachara after meeting with Asanga. In Asanga's writings it is taught that Parinispanna is eternal non-dual consciousness, that it is the 'true self', and that the attainment of Nirvana is essentially the Parinispanna retruning to it's real/true nature as eternal non-dual consiousness, this undeniably constitutes absolutism. I can't imagine why you would omit this highly relevent point unless you were intentionally being deceptive. Influential Chan teachers such as Huangpo have explicitly asserted an 'idealist' absolutism involving an understanding of Tathagatagarbha which differs from Madhyamaka.

>>14338574
no that’s a Western secular meme. The cosmology is literal.
>>14338581
There is already no continuous “you” moment to moment in this life right now beyond the assumption constructed dependent on the impersonal aggregates (form, feelings, perceptions, mental formations, and consciousness), all of which taken one by one are clearly not “you.” Why would it be different from one life to the next?

Who cares about shitskin religion

>>14338437
Ah ok. Thanks. But do they have an idea for the some total of everything?>>14338607
I’m not into Much eastern high theology/philosophy, but I’ve been reading a grate book called Japan: An attempt at Interpretation, published back in 1907 and it gave one of the best short form cosmological explainations I have heard of for this concept. I’m not eloquent enough to restate it, and I’m phone posting, but if anyone wants to understand the concept of getting past the illusion of self I would say pinpointing that one section on high theology is a must read. He was righting to fireigners who knew puss all about much eastern stuff, so he makes sure to explain the concepts digestibly for the western sensibilities.

>>14338631
>aryans
>shitskins
oh you poor mutt

>>14338587
And Buddhists think they have escaped this trap by calling their Godhead "emptiness" or "void"

You are just playing with semantics, but the concepts are exactly the same

>>14337363
buddhism is to hinduism as nietzsche and the miserable wretches he influenced were to almost all preceding western philosophy

>>14338436

I'm at desire for deliverance on the second path now. I noticed that worldly love could not compare with nibbana, which I have known only once, during first path. I attenuated some sense desire recollecting various fantasies I have had. Ah, well. Compassion is better.

>>14338548
>>14338020

and you become a buddha by prioritizing yourself. putting others before yourself comes by putting yourself first in buddhism..

>>14338413
Unlike many other religions, Buddhism at least recognizes other religions. It puts them in the first category, people looking to improve their place in reincarnation by improving their karma.

>>14338728
>>14337706
that's like saying just cause you want to learn first before you teach makes you selfish and prioritizing yourself over others
dumb christian coming up with scammer tier arguments

>>14337706
Nah bro. This guy slaying buddhism is a good thing.

>>14338548
>Are you retarded? The whole point of becoming a buddha is to put others before yourself. Furthermore, the entire Tibetan government is based on an individual. The reincarnating Dalai Lama.

Nah this is good. I like to see people critize religions other than Christianity and see how butt hurt people get.

Muslim religion is stupid too. Praying 10 times a day must waste both your time and God's time. Can you imagine calling someone 10 times again. By the 2nd day what the fuck are you taking about?

>>14338664
they aren't

>>14337375
>>14337442
>>14337516
>>14337675
>>14337810
>>14337850
>>14338199
>>14338053
>>14338413
>>14338450
>>14338511
hello guenonfag :)

Can someone recommend a book that goes deep into the real Buddhist teachings? I want all the cosmology, philosophy, and theology; none of this r*ddit tier, atheistic Buddhism that white people in the US practice. I want bona fide Buddhism as practiced by actual Buddhists

>>>/his/
fucking lazy mods never doing their job

>>14339153
everything is history you low IQ nigger

>>14338392
>>14338391

10. His glory shineth for ever and ever. Therefore is He called the Buddha of Everlasting Light.
Most excellent is the virtue of this light, for he who perceiveth it is born into Paradise without dissolution of being.


11. The glory of the Infinite is boundless, therefore is He known as the Buddha of Light Past Comprehension.
All the Buddhas glorify the majesty of His holiness that leadeth all the earth into His Kingdom.

12. His clear shining transcendeth all revelation, nor can human speech utter it. Therefore is He named the Buddha of Light Unspeakable.
All the Buddhas glorify the glory of the Infinite One who is Buddha through His promise of Light immeasurable.

13. Take refuge in Him who is Holiest of Holy. Sun and moon are lost in the ocean of His splendour. Therefore is He named that Infinite in whose radiance Sun and Moon are darkened. Before whose Divine Power even that Buddha made flesh in India himself faltereth in ascribing praise to the Majesty of His true glory.

14. Far beyond human numbering are the wise in the high assemblage of the Infinite One. Therefore let him who would be born into the Land of Purity seek refuge in the Great Congregation.

-Buddhist Psalms https://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/bups/bups03.htm

If Buddhism isn't a continuation of the Upanishads. Then what do buddhists actually think of the Upanishads and texts like the Bhagavad Gita?

We're the Upanishadic sages just deluded, misguided and/or liars?
Did the Krishna ever actually exist? If he did exist, was he just another deluded God stuck in the Samsara?

How do buddhists reconcile the other dharmic reloptions that also appeared around the same time like Jainism?
Are the Jains just as deluded as the Hindus?


I don't get how the Buddha can just come along and take the teachings he wants from the Vedas but then reject the rest of them.

Is he saying that the Vedas were authentic at one point and were corrupted? Or did they just coincidentally get some things right, like Karma and reincarnation.

>>14339096
Okay whiteheadposter.

>>14338871
no no, it's like saying that teaching others is good because you have learned. it places learning above teaching. it's like saying teaching is only good because you have learned. the priorities are all wrong here.

>>14339400
>Then what do buddhists actually think of the Upanishads and texts like the Bhagavad Gita?
Can't speak for Buddhists today but the Buddha didn't actually think of the Upanishads that much. By his time the Brihadaranyaka and Chandogya upanishads were hidden in the Vedas during oral transmission. Scholars like Nakamura posit that Buddhists around that era and geography likely didn't know the upanishads were a phenomena even if discussion of various upanishadic ideas were thrown around during discourses.

>We're the Upanishadic sages just deluded, misguided and/or liars?
according to the Buddha, they were just ignorant of the truth. There was no contempt between them like there is on these forums.

>Did the Krishna ever actually exist? If he did exist, was he just another deluded God stuck in the Samsara?
Avatars like Krishna and Rama became folklore characters in buddhist tales.

>Are the Jains just as deluded as the Hindus?
Buddhists think they just have a different dharma.

>I don't get how the Buddha can just come along and take the teachings he wants from the Vedas but then reject the rest of them
I guess he was practicing perennialism?

>Is he saying that the Vedas were authentic at one point and were corrupted? Or did they just coincidentally get some things right, like Karma and reincarnation.
The PC seems to suggest an older buddhistic tradition or some sort of order that was lost to time however it seems highly unlikely. In terms of the Vedas he simply rejected it.

>>14339096
Holy fuck you're right, so this is him >>14338325

>>14339510
>he was practicing perennialism

But most Buddhists on this board oppose perennialism anon.

And that isn't even what Perennialism means. Perennialism is believing that all religions are different manifestations of the truth.
Guenon, for example, actually opposed syncretic religions and denounced them as new age pseudo religions


>Krishna became a folklore character in Buddhism

But Krishna believed in the concept of Brahman. If the Buddha was right, then Krishna couldn't have been. (Or the Buddha just thought it was better to describe Brahman as a Void rather than an Absolute)

>Jains have a different dharma

So could this be said about all religions having a different dharma? Most Buddhists I've seen on this board believe their dharma is the only correct one

>>14338607
>There is already no continuous “you”
Even christians are not this deluded lmao.
Saying stupid shit like this is like saying cars don't exist because a tire is not a car, a carseat is not a car, a windshield is not a car, therefore cars dont exist.

>>14337442
This IS the correct answer.

>>14338669
So buddhists are semantic madmen with syphillis who cant cope with life?

>>14339096
Im not guenonfag and only one of those posts are mine.

>>14339844
>Guenon
Guenon (and Coomaraswamy) took great lengths to extract 'tradition' out of Buddhism to the point that it didn't even resemble Buddhism at all.

>But Krishna believed in the concept of Brahman
They obviously retconned it silly, in buddhist tales he was just a subordinate character with a minor arc.

>So could this be said about all religions having a different dharma?
Yes

>Most Buddhists I've seen on this board believe their dharma is the only correct one
Yes and? Believing your way to be the only way to parinirvana doesn't imply that buddhists feel others are 'deluded'.

Buddhism and Hinduism had mutual influence for thousands of years. It doesn't really make sense to say the one is descended from the other. Indian religion and philosophy developed out of the Vedic period, but brahmanic schools of that time don't represent all of Indian thought or culture, and in any event they did not penetrate to every part of ancient India. Parts of the sramana "movement" had connections to the Vedic discourses, but many of them seem almost surprisingly ignorant of them, given modern New Age expectations that Hinduism is a simplistically uniform historical development. Buddhism also had enormous influence on Hinduism in parts of the 1st millennium AD.

It's a bit like asking whether Mithraism, gnosticism, and Christianity are all the same thing. To even understand that question you would have to understand the religious and philosophical context of the ancient world in the Hellenistic and Roman eras. Actually, these trends themselves filtered into India and influenced local religions considerably. So it's always complicated.

>>14339939
>Yes and? Believing your way to be the only way to parinirvana doesn't imply that buddhists feel others are 'deluded'.

Yes it does. It implies that everyone who isn't a Buddhist is ignorant of the truth


Can an actual practicing Buddhist itt respond to these questions >>14339400

>>14337363
Why must Brahman and void be different? I would think that an absolute is empty and emptiness is absolute. I don't see the reason for the debate between brahman and sunyatta.

>>14339950
And they are almost right.
They would be completely right if they were catholic.
>>14339952
emptiness =|= void
Also void doesn't exist the same way nothing doesn''t exist.

>>14339950
>Yes it does. It implies that everyone who isn't a Buddhist is ignorant of the truth
Ignorance and delusion aren't the same thing anon. Buddhists don't hold contempt for others that they are 'deluded', in fact they probably hold dharmas like Jainism in high esteem but they ultimately think that is not what leads to nirvana.

>>14339932
Hes a paranoid schizo who thinks everyone who is sympathetic towards Guenon and skeptical towards Buddhism must be Guenonfag


>>14339952
They dont have to be. From my readings of Buddhist texts, the Buddha just believed that a better description of the Brahman was to describe it as "Emptiness" and "Void"

Brahman is supposed to represent "the true nature of reality"
And the Buddha believed that the true reality was Void, as opposed to the samsara.

>>14339977
Off yourself christard. This thread is for high-iq religions

>>14339993
>high-IQ
>incoherent
pick one nigger
>>14339978
>nirvana
What is this?

>>14339982
idk that anon seems to have a point about guenonfag who seems like a paranoid schizo himself

>>14339997
You Christards are subhuman scum who pervert the message of the Gospel and have no right to exist

>>14340000
Both are paranoid schizos

>>14339982
>From my readings of Buddhist texts, the Buddha just believed that a better description of the Brahman was to describe it as "Emptiness" and "Void"
where did Buddha describe Brahman as Emptiness?

>>14340004
>You Christards are subhuman scum who pervert the message of the Gospel and have no right to exist
Do something about it faggot.

>>14340006
He dosent. What the Buddha says is that Sunyata is the ultimate reality.

What Upanishadic Hindus say is that Brahman is the ultimate reality.

Sunyata is to Buddhists what Brahman is to Hindus. Buddha just though that "void" was a better description than what the Hindus give to it

>>14340014
Don't need to. You are slaves of Yaldabaoth, he owns you

>>14340019
>What the Buddha says is that Sunyata is the ultimate reality.
where is this found?

>>14340021
>implying Jesus is whatever you just described there
retard

>>14340023

>>14340019
Sunyata is a Nagarjunian formulation, the Buddha never mentioned it apart from the skhandas and non-self. He didn't equate it with anything that is like Brahman.

>>14340028
im saying which sutta did Buddha say that Sunyata is the ultimate reality?

>>14340028
According to this sunyata is anything but emptiness/void.

>>14340030
He describes Sunyata very similarly to how Hindus describe Brahman. Sunyata is the focal point of Meditation in Buddhism, like how Brahman is for Hindus.

The reason Sunyata is Non-Self as opposed to Brahman being self, is because, even in Hinduism, there arent multiple "selves", just the one supreme self. in that way, it is also true to say that there is no "personal self" just the ultimate nature of reality. (Sunyata or Brahman). Hindus and Buddhists just use different terminology for the same thing


>>14340036
Do you even know what you are talking about?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%9A%C5%ABnyat%C4%81

>>14340043
>He describes Sunyata very similarly to how Hindus describe Brahman.
how does he describe Sunyata? Surely we could get a direct reference by now.

>>14340051
There are references to the Sutras in that wiki article for Sunyata...

>Sunyata is Brahman
Anons in here are clearly arguing with the resident schizo who once said Nirvana was the same as Brahman. He'll say that anything is Brahman. Buddhanature is Brahman. Dharmakaya is Brahman. How convenient, just about anything is Brahman to his neovedantic brain.

>>14340063
Thats because everything is Brahman.

>>14337917
>>14338337
>>14338436
>>14338711

underrated posts, this guy gets it

>>14340061
nothing in that article validates what you're saying though. You said you've read the Buddhist text, so why can't you prove what you're claiming?

>>14340068
>Thats because everything is Brahman.

>>14340071
That Emptiness is the underlying nature of reality

>>14340068
>everything is brahman, the self is brahman, therefore everything is the self, which is brahman which is everything is brahman is the self is everything is brahman, the self is brahman, therefore everything is the self, which is brahman which is everything is brahman is the self is everything

>>14340076
>>14340083

>>14340082
>the world is empty of self
and how does this translate to emptiness being the 'ultimate reality' a la Brahman? Don't hindus say that Brahman is the Self? How could that be true if there is no self in the world?

>Then Ven. Ānanda went to the Blessed One and on arrival, having bowed down to him, sat to one side. As he was sitting there he said to the Blessed One, “It is said that ‘the world is empty, the world is empty,’ lord. In what respect is it said that ‘the world is empty? Insofar as it is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self: Thus it is said, Ānanda, that ‘the world is empty.’1 And what is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self? The eye is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self. Forms… Eye-consciousness… Eye-contact is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self. And whatever there is that arises in dependence on eye-contact—experienced as pleasure, pain or neither-pleasure-nor-pain—that too is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self. The ear is empty.…The nose is empty.…The tongue is empty.…The body is empty.…The intellect is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self. Ideas… Intellect-consciousness… Intellect-contact is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self. And whatever there is that arises in dependence on intellect-contact—experienced as pleasure, pain or neither-pleasure-nor-pain—that too is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self. Thus it is said that ‘the world is empty.’”

can anyone actually find Brahman in this verse?

I think what people should realise here, is that Sunyata is actually the Negative form of Brahman

>>14340043
>Do you even know what you are talking about?
Buddhists don't even know, why do you expect me to?

>>14340112
I was hoping to talk to some actual Buddhists in this thread, not brainlet Christards.

>>14340082
>That Emptiness is the underlying nature of reality
Bullshit.

Are there any practicing Buddhists in this thread? or is it all just pseud westerners larping

>>14340115
>calls others brainlets
>doesn't go to Asia to meet real buddhists
You are a dumb dumb :)

>>14340125
>You need to go to a different country if you want to talk to buddhists. 4chan is a CHRISTIAN country

>>14340128
>implying that /lit/ is a place where you will meet actual serious high tier practicing buddhists who are also authentic
Retard confirmed.

>>14340121
are you a practicing Hindu?

>>14340121
It's all just western exoticism.
You guys can't into buddhism, it's all about signaling for you.

>yea like, actual buddhists would agree with me about Brahman though

>>14337706
what is mahayaba buddhism

>>14340167
a bunch of bullshit

>>14340161
this

it's just like those western hindus bowing to brown yogis feet in exchange for good karma. I legit think anyone is white shouldn't go anywhere near Dharmism.

>>14340121
>Are there any practicing Buddhists in this thread?
what are you excepting from practicing Buddhists exactly? I doubt they even come here, if you're looking for them go to actual forums or subreddits where they exist.

>>14340169
>a bunch of bullshit

>>14340128
>Comes to a shitposting imageboard for serious discussion about his meme religion, even though it's nothing but guenongposting and nietzscheposting
You're the retard here buddy

>>14340207
>implying that Shankara wasn't just a pseudobuddhist talking bullshit like all buddhists do

>>14340161
>>14340181
This.
White people (and westerners in general, but mostly whites) are just spiritual virtue signalers, who want to differentiate themselves by showing off how they are different from their mainstream culture. If they lived in India they would be Christians because that's the exotic thing to do there.
It's a purely exoteric form of vanity, nothing more.

>>14340246
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0KU4YJXroHQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUkElD9gF0M
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6EVHfiUT9Ss

>>14340261
Christards unironically deserve it

>>14340261
>Hindus and Buddhists persecute Muslims
Christkeks: HAHAH TAKE THAT MUHUMMADS

>Hindus persecute Christkeks
Christkeks: wtf thats not cool bros

>>14340271
>>14340275
Nice compassion there bro. I'm pretty sure you're white.

>>14340282
Christianity is the least compassionate religion towards anyone who isnt Christian (Or people who dont interpret Christianity the same way you do).
You guys are getting what you deserve

>>14340285
>implying im a christian because I point out white people being retarded
deflection, thy name is white

>>14340285
lol, peak middle class liberal virtue signaling
let me guess, you watched eat pray love and decided you are God and became enlightened?

>>14340246
based

>>14340167
>and you become a buddha by prioritizing yourself. putting others before yourself comes by putting yourself first in buddhism..

>>14339923
pretty much

>>14340275
they're just targeting subversive evangelists

>>14340261
Hindus are right about Jewish myth cults.

>>14340068
kek

>>14340083
that's a text representation of when someone achieves samadhi and starts getting facefucked by the light that appears

Why is it that Non-Buddhist westerners itt Who are probably Materialists seethe so hard when a Hindu says that Buddhism was supposed to be a continuation of the Upanishadic teachings, and that Brahman and Sunyata are the same concept?

>>14340261
>Oy veyy why do they persecute us so much!?
Get rekt christcucks. Absolute trash of a religion

>>14340019
Dumb. Ultimate reality of Buddha and Hindu are very different even if the word "ultimate reality" is same. The difference is, (Advaita) Hindus are claiming the world is just a shadow and real ultimate truth is "something" out there called brahman. Buddhists believe the world is what we have and its not a shadow or shadow of anything. The problem Buddhist tackle is the idea of "inner essence" of the world/object is the problem. Aka the soul/uniqueness/immortality of objects.

>>14341246
Because the same argument is used to say Atheism is just a continuation of judeo-christian and that atheism and theism are same concept grasping at two ends.

>>14341270
So Buddha really was to Hindus what Nietzsche was to Christkeks

>>14341276
Nietzsche also thought this. Maybe his insanity letters were his most true thoughts after all

>>14337706
As far as I can see, both Buddhism and Christianity are egoistic -- as nearly everything is.

Don't worry about it.

>>14341285
That is true among their followers. BUT its not true for the founders of said religions

>>14341270
Arent Buddhists saying that the true nature of reality is Non-Self though?

While Hindus are saying that the true nature of reality is Self? (Brahman is the same as Self)

>>14341295
>Arent Buddhists saying that the true nature of reality is Non-Self though?
Non-self in the context of Samsara, they aren't denying Samsara.

As for Hindus, they say Samsara is a fiction and the real Self is just the inner souls of everyone that is part of a "something" other called Brahman.

>>14341319
Thats because though, Hindus believe the Brahman transcends the Material Samsara (Which is an illusion, Maya). "Annihilation" into Brahman means an escape from the cycle of reincarnation just like "Nirvana" means for Buddhists.

Its just a semantic difference, Both Buddhists and Hindus have the same goal of escaping the Samsara (atleast the ones who follow Upanishadic teachings)

>>14341350
Everything can be explained by semantics difference if that is your goal. But alas, we live in real world and word choices allows us to form coherent thoughts.

>>14341246
>when a Hindu
yes, we know guenonfag is a hindu (a hardcore one at that)

>>14341442
>This but unironically

Imagine being a white western Atheist/Pagan and defending a shitskin religion from another shitskin larping as a different shitskin religion

>>14341358
the goal is that the two have the same target with different stories.
the two want to scape the false and enter the real.

>>14341350
>Its just a semantic difference
no, it is metaphysical as well. Hindus say one becomes one with Brahman upon moksha while Buddhists simply say one Nirvanas. They aren't the same.

I think a big thing, is that Buddhists dont understand what Hindus mean by Brahman.
"Brahman" was never a "God" in Hinduism, not in the Monotheistic sense. Its like how, In Neoplatonism and Gnosticism, the absolute creative principle was the Monad, and wasnt considered a "God" because it was above the Demiurge and his Archons (Thats Indra in Hinduism).

Its only more recently with the introduction of Christianity and Sufi Islam, that people referred to the Monad (Brahman, or Allah) as the one "true" God, and every other deity is an "Angel" or a "Demon"


>>14341483
Moksha is a thing in Buddhism as well...

>>14341499
like this
>>14338587

>>14341499
>Moksha is a thing in Buddhism as well...
It is not the same as Nirvana, which is what you've said.

>>14341453
>the two want to scape the false and enter the real.
Once again, you're wrong. Your refusal to accept that is your own problem.

Hindus want to escape the world. They see the world as fake shadow of a "real" world hidden from the view, aka Brahman/monist idea, etc.

Buddhists say the only real world is what we have. The Buddhist problem is not to make the world disappear as that makes no sense. Buddhist problem is the clinging to a "core essence" of ideas/objects. Buddhist argue against the monism/nihilsm problem Hindus choose to adopt.

>>14341499
>>14341510

>>14338437

>>14341499
>I think a big thing, is that Buddhists dont understand what Hindus mean by Brahman.
and Hindus don't understand what Buddhists mean by Sunyata (as evidenced by this thread).

>>14341499
You're dumb. Buddhists aren't arguing against just God in here, they're arguing against Monad/God/Nihilism/Absolutism. You lack the capacity to understand the argument presented by Buddhists.

>>14341515
Nirvana leads to Moksha. Thats Buddhism 101

>>14341516
Buddhists also want to escape the material world though, and enter Nirvana. It dosent matter if you call it an illusion or not,
They both agree that Material world = BAD

>>14341522
They do, they just think it serves the exact same purpose as Brahman

>>14341529
>Nirvana leads to Moksha. Thats Buddhism 101

>>14341527
How does Neoplatonism (Or any Monadic doctrine) lead to Nihilism in any way, and Buddhism dosent?

>>14341533
>UGHGHGUGHGH NIRVANA DOSENT MEAN LIBERATION FROM THE SAMSARA UG UG

>>14341529
>enter Nirvana
Nirvana isn't something you 'enter'. The Buddha describes it like a fire being blown out. This is why I said Hindus don't understand Buddhist concepts, they misinterpret them frequently.

>>14341543
Holy fuck you are autistic to argue a semantic that irrelevant.
So does Nirvana mean liberation from the Samsara or not?

>>14341551
>Holy fuck you are autistic to argue a semantic that irrelevant.
what are you saying, we are arguing metaphysics not semantics. Yes nirvana liberates you from samsara. But it doesn't 'lead' to anything like 'oneness with Brahman' which is what Moksha implies.

>>14341529
>Buddhists also want to escape the material world though, and enter Nirvana. It dosent matter if you call it an illusion or not,
>They both agree that Material world = BAD
Thats one minor view of Buddhism. Yogacara view is outdated.

>>14341535
Monad argument is "everything is one." Hindu argument is, "world is a fake illusion(nihilism), so accept the monad(brahman) that is outside the illusion." Buddhist argument is "world is all there is, the idea of "hidden" ideas/soul/atman like soul is fake. Also lack of "hidden" souls do not make monad and monad idea suffers same problem of "hidden" soul, thus an untenable position"

>>14341557
>which is what Moksha implies

No, Moksha just means liberation from the Samsara. It is used in Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism.

Hindus just say Moksha is achieved by uniting with the Monad, Buddhists say it is achieved by extinguishment.
They are both going for the same goal

>>14341564
>that is a minor view

How? The goal of Buddhism in itself is to escape the Samsara by extinguishment.
If buddhism was Optimistic about Materialism and the material world, as opposed to Monadic worldviews, they would have the goal of staying within the samsara for as long as they could and "enjoying" an infinite number of lives.

If Buddhism actually affirmed and wanted to stay within the Samsara, then I would admit that it is different to Hinduism and couldn't be reconciled with Perennialism

>>14341573
>They are both going for the same goal
obviously they aren't since one unites you with the Monad and the other doesn't. That is what we mean by Moksha and Nirvana, there is a clear distinction.

>>14341614
Both Hindus and Buddhists want to achieve Moksha. They have different interpretations of how that is supposed to be achieved.
That is literally all I am saying you autist.

If buddhism really was an Optimistic religion, they wouldnt be trying to liberate themselves from the samsara.

>>14341635
>Both Hindus and Buddhists want to achieve Moksha
Buddhists want to achieve Nirvana, not Moksha. You keep trying to muddie the waters and say 'hurr its all the same bro' when there is a clear distinction. Do you actually believe Buddhists posit a monad?

>>14341595
The assertion of an "enjoyment" from samsara comes from rejection of 4 noble truths. If you do not believe you are suffering, if you can argue that the world does not suffer, if clinging to a false notion of soul does not cause suffering, your argument would make sense.

The reason Buddhists do not talk about living as an immortal is that it contradicts the entire base of Buddhism. Change, no self, and suffering. You could argument if something is eternal, it could have a self and it could be free from suffering. But we don't find that in the world. Everyone wants those qualities and those qualities are formed due to lack of understanding of 3 marks of existence, and thus the samsara.

>>14341644
>Buddhist want to achieve Nirvana but not Moksha

Alright you got me good in this thread with the quality bait. Next time I will find actual Buddhists to discuss this with

>>14341664
Next time, try to understand what the Buddhists are arguing instead of interjecting some weird hindu/perennialist bullshit.

>>14341664
Actual buddhists will tell you the same thing. It's the most basic litmus test for Buddhism, go ahead and tell a buddhist if he thinks Moksha is the final goal and not Nirvana (also you didn't answer my question about Buddhists positing monad).

>>14341668
You clearly dont know anything about Buddhism if you think Buddhists arent aiming to be liberated from the Samsara

But I know you cant be that stupid, so you must just be trolling

>>14341678
this

He keeps asking for 'real buddhists'. It's as if he's ever going to meet a buddhist that will agree with his flawed interpretation. Amazing.

>>14341688
>liberated from the Samsara
Given that you are conflating many things, I assume you're claiming Buddhists are Christian as Jesus offers liberation from Samsara.

>there are people in this thread who think Nirvana isnt freedom from the continuous rebirths of the Samsara

Why even make posts?

>>14341724
Because Guenonfag is easy to troll

>>14341724
Not sure why you're still doing this lmao. Its an anonymous site, no need to hide behind stupid strawman when everything is explained.

>>14341739
You are really committing with this bait, but its time to stop

>>14341724
>Moksha ---> freedom ---> Brahman
>Nirvana ---> extinction
Is it really that hard to understand?

>>14341748
Do Buddhists posit a monad?

>>14341750
Extinction implies freedom from the rebirths of the samsara.... Moksha alone has nothing to do with Brahman unless its specifically in a Hindu context

>>14341756
you said in this very thread
>"Annihilation" into Brahman means an escape from the cycle of reincarnation just like "Nirvana" means for Buddhists.

clearly you are implying that
>Nirvana leads to Moksha

changing stories already?

>>14340981
Jews are right about goyim

>>14341754
>the one question he will never answer because it will destroy his fragile argument.

>>14341776
dear god guenonfag is dumb. Its like the 15th time he's made a freudian slip this year. He really couldn't keep a consistent argument if his life depended on it. Does he know his posts don't expire?

>>14340981
THIS

>>14341256
Nice slave morality lmao
>>14341276
But thats exactly right anon
>>14341285
Because the ego is an i evitable phenomenon and learning to properly handle it is a core requirement in all decent religions.
>>14341516
>Buddhists say the only real world is what we have.
Wow what a shit religion lol

>>14341827

>>14341543
>Nirvana isn't something you 'enter'.
>Being this desperate to save your argument

>>14341843
he's right, it isn't a destination.

>>14337363
That's a cobtrover question. It depends how strictly you're defining Hinduism and Buddhism. The Buddha lived in the 5th century BC, a time of high urban culture in the Gangetic plain. Around this time you have multiple 'renouncer' traditions which emphasise personal asceticism and discipline over ritual performances. They usually had a founding figure who was thought to have taught the eternal true teaching about liberation from the cycle of rebirths. Later, Buddhism became the largest among these, but there was also Jainism (still extant today in India), Ajivikism (extinct) and a sceptical school called Lokayata or Charvaka (extinct).

The controversy is if these trends arose within the orthodoxy of Hinduism. Now, "Hinduism" is a difficult word here, because it's used very broadly to mean all indigenous religion devoted to gods, and very narrowly to mean the ritual system of religion based on the Vedas. For clarity, we can use the latter definition. Asceticism is certainly mentioned in the Vedas themselves, all the way back to the Rigveda Sanhita (2nd millennium BC), and especially in the Upanishads, some of which predate Buddhism and Jainism. The Upanishads appear to teach the doctrines of reincarnation and the superiority of asceticism to ritual practice; but was this an unorthodox view that became incorporated into the orthodox, or an orthodox view that spun off into unorthodox traditions? That's been debated back and forth for ages.

I would say that certain strands of the renouncer tradition are certainly from vedic Hindu orthodoxy, which is a very broad tent even with the restrictive definition. I don't accept the hypothesis of an undiscovered, independent tradition that birthed all the renouncer religions independently of Vedic religion. However, the total rejection of vedic ritual and organised monasticism seem to be original to the renouncer traditions. Even the Upanishads which criticise ritual practice accept their efficacy and use the ritual texts to find spiritual truths. For example, the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad begins with a description of the vedic horse sacrifice in which the body parts of the horse are identified with different parts of the universe. Those ritual identifications are very common vedic tropes and presuppose the sacredness of the ritual. Meanwhile, Buddhism and Jainism explicitly reject the Vedas and their philosophers criticised vedic ritual as being immoral and useless. Monastic orders were certainly a Buddhism/Jain innovation, only hermit sages are described in the Vedas, and Hindu monasteries only appeared in the early middle ages.

>>14341754
yeah sunyata

>>14339978
Buddhism holds that all other religions are a method of improving your karma to get a better position in rebirth. Hardly a negative connotation.

>>14341980
>sunyata is a monad

>>14342136
It's still a problem, but not AS much as being a hedonistic fool who lives an unexamined life.

>>14341849
Thats not what the argument was in the first place you dense cunt.

>>14341831
>too stupid argue posts pic instead

>>14340107
I think I understand what this is saying. There is no part of the self that makes up a self, like no grain of sand makes a sandcastle. But I don't understand what the hyphenated terms are. What is eye-consciousness, eye-contact, intellect-consciousness, intellect-contact, etc?

This will take a long time to answer. I'll try.

First of all we must define what Hinduism is: it is older than Buddhism, dating back to 4000 years ago. Hinduism is a nonsensical term, its name is Sanatana Dharma, the eternal law. Sometimes also the term Veda Dharma is used. Hinduism is historically divided in 3 periods:

Vedism: let's sacrifice to pseudo-Greek gods to have favours and go to heaven. Also we have castes.

Brahmanism: let's sacrifice to manipulate the universe and do what we want, also go to heaven until the next incarnation. Also we have castes.

The third phase is modern Hinduism, but a more logic term would be Vedantism or Vedanta Dharma, because the basis is in the interpretation of the vedas contained in the Vedanta texts like the Upanishads.
Here Hinduism becomes a technology, the texts give you how metaphysics works and how to return to Atman-Brahman of you want it. It is highly encouraged. If you don't return to Brahman you will reincarnate because of your karma. Karma is a metaphysical object you accumulated because you made deeds with attachment to the material world. If you meditate and follow the four paths of Yoga, you will burn karma and reach the Atman-Brahman. Castes become less important, they are more social than religious, many Dalits tried to convert to Buddhism to avoid casteism but it didn't work that way.

Now, the point is, following the writings of sacred texts, Buddhism comes before Vedanta. But Vedantists say their message was already present in the Vedas and was transmitted orally, thus going through the ages and, at the end, influencing Gautama. I think Vedanta came first but maybe I'm biased as an Advaitin.

Buddhism says similar things to Hinduism, we have Karma, Samsara who are identical. The difference is in this: Atman-Brahman VS Anatman-Sunyata-Adi Buddha (Adi Buddha only for Mahayanas).

Hinduism says we have Atman-Brahman, the universal spirit, beyond Body, senses, mind and individuality.

Buddhism says we have Sunyata-Anatman, nothingness, beyond body, senses, mind and individuality.

There has been an Enormous number of debates on these arguments in the east, but my opinion, which will be considered unpopular, is that Atman-Brahman and Sunyata-Anatman are the same thing.

>>14341595
Clearly, you don't understand Samsara on a fundamental level. It's not something you try to enjoy. If you do that you'll simply bounce between the god realms and hell. Nirvana is a state outside of Samsara where there is no death or life, but not non-existence either. You simply are, or rather, are not. How about instead of wasting everyone's time you go and do some basic research first.

>>14342468

Yes, Atman is defined a pure being, but it is not a sense, so it cannot be smelled, tasted, seen, heard or touched. It cannot be thought, it isn't a body, it isn't your individuality, it isn't space nor time. How to describe it? Empirically speaking, we can only say it is nothingness. Logically speaking, we say it is the only true being.

Anatman and Atman are the same thing, they are only described in different terms.

In Mahayana we have the concept of Adi Buddha, which is a personification of Sunyata. This is used to make the believer feel love for Sunyata. If you think about it, this is literally the same thing of Isvara in Hinduism. Mahayana has cosmic Buddhas, which are identical to Devas from Hinduism. Let's not talk about Buddhism Devas, they are just very powerful guys but still mortal.

My opinion about Buddha? He was a true Vedantin, he saw people using Vedas to justify casteisma and superstion, therefore he expressed the same concepts of Hinduism in a different way, creating formally a different religion but De Facto the same religion.

I should also have talked about Dukkha and different Buddhism and Hinduism school but it would have become extremely long

>>14341635
>bro, like, all relgions are the same maaaaaan
>they all just, like, wanna go to heaven maaannn
>bro pass the, like, weed maaaaaaan
>whoa dude, like, fat cloud maaaaaann

>>14342468
>>14342473
What's your background on Hinduism and buddhism? How did you learn it? I'm curious because there's some good understanding, but also very flawed ones regarding buddhism. You're equating some fringe Buddhist ideas and conflating it as mainstream.

>>14342469
>You simply are, or rather, are not
Incomprehensible mysticbabble intensifies.
Just admit that you are a nihilist and get over yourself.

>>14342476
Buddhists are unironically like this.

>>14339100
https://puredhamma.net/

>>14342638
>can't even comprehend non-existence
you'll never make it, egoman

>>14339100
If you want the lay buddhist, start with the buddhist country of your choice. Then support your local dharma centers. Listen to their advices/lectures, etc. Finally adopt local gods/dieties and pray to those as well.


If you want the monastic buddhism, join the buddhist school of your choice. Read the favorite sutra of your choice 10000 times till you memorize. Meditate.

>>14342659
>can't comrehend something that doesn't exist
>can't comrehend something that has internal contradictions
Pro-tip: nobody can because it's impossible.

>tfw you realize guenonfag has no job and he spends every day of every week on /lit/ e-debating internet buddhists and replying "Nice, good post :^)" to his own posts
>tfw you realize he's probably like 35+

>>14342738
He is actually a 32 year old divorcee and his name is Alec, but he runs under the alias "Hector" now.
He supposedly lives in India and wants to save the white race by converting them to hinduism while he breeds indian cuties and advocates for veganism.

>>14342396
how a buddhist escape from the self, suffering and reincarnation without an underlying faith in an ultimate substrate?.

>>14342609
>>>14342468 (You)
>>>14342473 (You)
>What's your background on Hinduism and buddhism? How did you learn it? I'm curious because there's some good understanding, but also very flawed ones regarding buddhism. You're equating some fringe Buddhist ideas and conflating it as mainstream.

I have a friend initiated to Kriya Yoga in India, he also introduce me to people initiated in Buddhism and Taoism. I did read Yogananda, Nisargadatta Maharaj and Vivekananda (however, I think Vivekananda can harm mental health if not well understood)

What are these "Fringe Ideas" you are talking about?

>>14337706
>self improvement of the self
No; no self.

>>14342802
AdiBuddha is fringe end of the Buddhism developed late in Buddhist cycle during the dilution period(when Buddhists were placating to the Hindu revival era). The idea of AdiBuddha = Brahman is even "fring-er" as its an idea that no mainstream Buddhism follows. There's also the idea that Anatman-Sunyata = Atman-Brahman that makes no sense unless you're doing some word plays.

>Empirically speaking, we can only say it is nothingness. Logically speaking, we say it is the only true being.
Also this is word games here. You're just mixing two concept and claiming its the same. Your rational is "because they leads to opposite ends, it must mean they lead to same place because they're going in circular motion." The flaw is obvious.

>>14338413
People explained to you what Absolutism meant in the other thread. But still here you are pretending Absolutism in this context means belief in having the religious truth.

>>14341451
>Christianity

Your argument is invalid.

>>14341451
Nigger, then why dont you invent your own fucking religion ?

>>14342859
>>14342855
nothingness is the absolutism of buddhism.
you dont grasp it as absolute because is "nothing".
its like the people who say, you have to "sense" it, not think about it. and if you conceptualize the nothingness they tell you that isnt the nothingness, and we can be in that wheel forever. you cant talk about love, you have to "feel it". its the same stupidness rolling forever.
your position is that nothingness its not absolute because is "nothing". but that not change the fact that buddhist think nothingness is their goal in life and the definitive place to be or most appropiately, to cease to be.
buddhists are so twisted that they cant think nothingness as definitive precisely to be in that place. is just a sacred jewel. and only because is a sacred notion, then comes your misunderstanding and your incapacity of understanding it like an absolute. the dogma of your religion is learning to dont cling to anything, so you cant see the trick and the fraud of clinging to nothingness. because that literally desintegrate the point of your religion.
you need to see nothingness like something so pure that even gods and spiritual realms and concepts are stupid in comparison. but every religion tell the same.

you present buddhism as some kind of modest psychology and philosophical deconstruction of self and life without an absolute to reach but is only your faith in it who make you think like that, your faith in nothingness as the absolute and the definitive "no place" to desintegrate.

nothingness is not brahman, i agree, they come with different stories and diferent dressing.
but nothingness its an absolute to reach, you cant see it because you have faith in it.

>>14342753
So he's based

>>14343405
Yeah I'm thinking this guenonanon is based

>>14343369
Low IQ post

>>14343369
It's almost like nibbana is a metaphysical absolute.

>>14342787
Buddhists have faith.

>>14342694
You can experience the stream of nibbana.

>>14342473
I don't think they're the same.

>>14343436
this, but unironically

>>14342468
>but my opinion, which will be considered unpopular, is that Atman-Brahman and Sunyata-Anatman are the same thing.
it isn't just unpopular, its obviously false. If it was the same, there wouldn't be a distinction. Those concepts are nearly opposite. It's like saying 1 is 0 because there is only 1 0s.

>>14343369
>nothingness is the absolutism of buddhism.

>>14338728
I'm not an expert on Buddhism but I think you're both right and wrong. Buddhas teach by way of example.
But on the path to nirvana, you can go a few extra steps by denying yourself nirvana and becoming a Bodhisattva, who stays in the material realm specifically to guide a teach others.

Daily reminder that Buddhists and Hindus both uninanimously agree that Sunyata and Brahman are the same thing.

The only people who disagree with this are white, non-buddhist, non-hindu western materialists trying to btfo Guenonfag

The difference with Buddhism, is Buddhists Nirvana aims to go further than Sunyata and they try and extinguish the feeling of emptiness itself.

>>14337363

>>14343405
He would be based if he was trying to convert everyone to Islam rather than Hinduism.

Even Guenon himself admitted that Hinduism is out of reach of westerners because it requires being part of the Indian Caste system.

Reminder to ignore all pseudointellectual rhetoriticians and instead go read the complete works of Homer, Pindar, Plato, Aristotle, Sophocles, Euripedes, Hesiod, Aristophones, Herodotus, Sappho, Plutarch, Ovid, Virgil, Lucretius, Arisoto, Horace, St. Augustine, Marcus Aurelius, Rabelais, Dante, Petrarch, Boccaccio, Machiavelli, Luther, Cervantes, Chaucer, the Beowulf poet, Chretien de Troyes, Marie de France, Sterne, Burton, Browne, Wyatt, Sidney, Percy Shelley, Tennyson, Donne, Pope, Dryden, Bacon, Novalis, Schelling, Schlegel, Hegel, Pascal, Lichtenberg, Dickinson, Shakespeare, Ibsen, Dickens, Marlowe, Diderot, Jonson, Goethe, Bunyan, Gibbon, Addison, Smollett, Milton, Johnson, Boswell, Emerson, Quincey, Burke, Spinoza, Leibniz, Hume, Kant, Mary Shelley, Wollstonecraft, Racine, Baudelaire, Valery, Rimbaud, Verlaine, Moliere, Montaigne, Browning, Gray, Holderlin, Schiller, Shaw, Voltaire, Hugo, Balzac, Zola, Colette, Duras, Dumas, Stendhal, Nerval, Flaubert, Mallarme, Malraux, Chateaubriand, Artaud, Poe, Wordsworth, Coleridge, Blake, Byron, Keats, Arnold, Pater, Walter Scott, Swinburne, Rossetti, Carroll, William James, Henry James, Hawthorne, Twain, Melville, Dewey, Bergson, Whitehead, George Eliot, Williams, Frost, Cummings, Crane, Stevens, Whitman, Plath, Trakl, Rilke, Celan, Montale, Neruda, Lorca, Tagore, Manzoni, Peake, Murdoch, Wharton, Wilde, Leopardi, Faulkner, O'Connor, Passos, Nietzsche, Marx, Adorno, Bloch, Lukacs, Bakhtin, Hamsun, Pushkin, Gogol, Tolstoy, Turgenev, Chekhov, Andreyev, Bely, Bulgakov, Gonchorov, Camoes, Pessoa, Queiroz, Saramago, Paz, Borges, Bloy, Pirandello, Huysmans, Lautreamont, Schwob, Casares, Bolano, Cortazar, Lima, Donoso, de Assis, Carpentjier, Celine, Marquez, Unamuno, Gracq, Gide, Jarry, Camus, Conrad, Wells, Hardy, Salinger, Lawrence, Forster, Hrabal, Swift, Bronte, Woolf, Bachelard, Roussel, Beckett, Proust, Nabokov, Joyce, O'Brien, Yeats, Waugh, Heaney, Auden, Hofmannsthal, Mann, Musil, Broch, Zweig, Bachmann, Jelinek, Lessing, Laxness, Simenon,Svevo, Levi, Buzzati, Quasimodo, Llosa, Walser, Kafka, Babel, Schulz, Transtromer, Kertesz, Pavic, Andric, Grossmann,Sillanpää, Linna, Mahfouz, Boll, Grass, Canetti, Pavese, Robbe-Grillet, Blanchot, Perec, Calvino, Bernhard, Gass, Barth, Gaddis, Vollmann, Vidal, Hawkes, DeLillo, Pynchon, McElroy, Soseki, Murasaki, Shonagon, Kawabata, Mishima, Akutagawa, Tanizaki, Dazai, Oe, Xingjian, Yan, Kosztolanyi, Gombrowicz, Ishiguro, Eco, Coetzee, Auerbach, Benjamin, Barthes, Pasternak, Derrida, Deleuze, Bateson, Foucault, Lyotard, Mcluhan, Eichenbaum, Steiner, Munro, Carson, Handke, Theroux, Patrick White, Alfau, Marias, Enard, Claude Simon, Elizabeth Bishop, Markson, Lowry, Bellow, Dara.

>>14345160
>Guenon himself admitted that Hinduism is out of reach of westerners
You'll find no such statements in either his books or letters, it's a myth propagated by people like Schuon etc who want you to convert to Islam. The man who bought Guenon's house for him in Cairo was an English Traditionalist who traveled to India, was accepted by them as a Hindu and who was initiated there.

>>14344950
that's true tho, if you don't understand it then you are the retarded one here

>>14345108
boddhisatvas dont deny themselves nirvana
if they don't achieve nirvana they wouldnt be boddhisattvas
they achieve pratisthitanirvana and wait until all beings are liberated for their apratisthitanirvana
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_(Buddhism)#Aprati%E1%B9%A3%E1%B9%ADhita_nirv%C4%81na

>>14345150
this bullshit
only the advaita vedanta uses that rhetoric
buddhists will ALWAYS deny the existence of Brahman as formulated by the vedic tradition
>I do not think that any conclusions sympathetic to the (for want of a better expression) ‘Hindu’ or ‘Absolutist’ interpretation can be drawn here from a series of negatives. It simply does not follow that even if I describe identically two things (such as Brahman and nirvana) using negative terminology I am thereby describing the same thing. Think of a banana and an orange both described as ‘not apple’, ‘not cabbage’, ‘not green’, ‘not on wheels’, ‘not powered by diesel’, and so on. And one certainly cannot conclude from language like that in the quotation above without considerable further evidence and argument that the Buddhists are speaking of the same thing as e.g. the Brahman of Advaita.
-- Paul Williams (2000)

>>14340027
Immeasurably stupid as always. Jesus is not the demiurge; Trinity is nonsense. Jesus (and the serpent of Eden) were messengers from Monad trying to release your shackles, yet you fucked it up completely and enslaved yourselves anew.

>>14345198
>they achieve pratisthitanirvana
Gesundheit

>>14339100
in countries with actual traditions sometimes they have classes for lay people where they learn directly from the scriptures

>>14341929
>I don't accept the hypothesis of an undiscovered, independent tradition that birthed all the renouncer religions independently of Vedic religion.
But the Vedas come from outside of India and don't teach samsara/moksha. Samsara/moksha is an indigenous tradition, independent of and prior to the Vedas. Just because something isn't textually attested (in a time from which few texts survive) doesn't mean it didn't exist. Both sramanic and post-Vedic brahmanic tradition inherits from this substrate.

>>14342468
You forgot the Puranas.

>>14345150
t. guenonfag

>>14345422
>Samsara/moksha is an indigenous tradition, independent of and prior to the Vedas
pure speculation, there is no existing evidence to support this, stop trying to push your ideological vision as historical fact

>>14345484
There's the fact that samsara/moksha is at best a minor keynote in the Vedas, at worst entirely absent.

>>14345150
Sunyata isn't Braman, get over it.

So I just read the Chandogya Upanishad. Based on that admittedly limited base of knowledge, I conclude that 1) I like the Upanishads better than Buddhist texts 2) those who claim that Buddha ripped off the Upanishads are full of shit. The Upanishads (at least the Chandogya) are poetic and evocative in a way that Buddhist text are not. But they speak of perfecting mantras to have powers in this world and reward in the next. Not at all Buddhistic or even sramanic. I just don't see the line of influence.

>>14345539
ok shitskin

>>14345567
Confused. Wouldn't a shitskin Hindoo nat shill that Buddha ripped off the Upanishads?

>>14345579
yea I meant to quote
>>14345484

>>14345599
oh, yeah, that guy's a shitskin.

I mean there's a fuck of a lot of the Vedas. Why don't they just say outright that reincarnation is the general fate of beings (as opposed to a special property of someone like Vishnu), that it's bad, and that it needs to be escaped. Unless they don't know it yet...

>>14345188
'hinduism' doesn't exist in a vacuum, the caste system is the social aspect of it. Unless one becomes a Sannyasa to bypass it altogether but with modernization (westernisation?) You might have a chance to be fair.

>>14345539
yeah hindusim and mahayana is entertainment, this is why people like them

>>14337363
http://esotericawakening.com/what-is-reality-the-holofractal-universe

How come this is so hard for materialists to understand? Void is the Absolute Monad in Buddhism. Real Buddhists will agree with this

The path to Nirvana is first achieving unity with Sunyata (which is the Monad) and THEN extinguishing even your identification with the Monad itself

Buddhism is literally just the next stage of Upanishadic Hinduism.

@14345888(You)
sunyata is absolute, but it's not the Absolute Monad
hindus love to try arguing buddhism is the same as hinduism STOP IT FFS
guenonfag should be permabanned

>>14345932
There is more than one person on this board that is arguing for this by the way.

Buddhists themselves believe Sunyata is the Monad. I can't believe Non-Buddhists and Non-religious people get so worked up over this lol

>>14345633
the Vedas represent the final stage of the evolution from the Indo-European, thunder god worshipping, soma drinking, sacrificial ritualizing, indian paganism to the serene, austere, monastic, buddhistic, nirvanic, shramanic, plagiarizing Dharma.

>>14345967
>Buddhists themselves believe Sunyata is the Monad
no

t. asian buddhist

>>14345979
Lies

>>14339096
fucking based

>>14338631
Funny how you say this considering Hindu philosophy was ripped off by different people ranging from the Greeks and even Nazis.
Retard

>>14345188
Guenon himself picked Islam over Hinduism retard.

That's why Guenonfag is a retard for shilling Hinduism over Islam

>>14345982
no, its true

>Perennialism isnt tru-
>Void isn't Brahm-

>>14346025
what is the quickest path directly to the center? i consider myself highly susceptible to enlightenment.

>>14346031
Probably a toss up between Sufi Islam and Buddhism

>>14346031
Nondualism, contemplation.

>w-well you see Sunyata is Brahman is Atman only real buddhists agree
cringe

>>14346036
>>14346043
wrong

>>14346056
Nobody here is arguing that Sunyata and Brahman are the same thing, they are arguing that they are both absolutes that serve the same purpose

>>14346062
Kill yourself brainlet

>>14346065
>they are both absolutes

>>14346069
All Buddhists believe Sunyata is the absolute. Get over it

>>14346072
>All Buddhists believe Sunyata is the absolute. Get over it

>>14346062
>Nondualism is wrong

>>14346069
>>14346076

>sir actually sunyata is an absolute, sir

>>14346090

>this is the person calling you a materialist
cringe

Any Pure Land/Chan converts? I can never seem to find any.

>>14345967
>There is more than one person on this board that is arguing for this by the way
yea that's why i said
>hindus love to try arguing buddhism is the same as hinduism STOP IT FFS

>Buddhists themselves believe Sunyata is the Monad
stop saying this bullshit, we all know it's not true
only hindus claim that

>I can't believe Non-Buddhists and Non-religious people get so worked up over this lol
fuck off lol

>this is the person calling you a materialist
cringe

>>14337706
>it prioritizes becoming a buddha (self improvement of the self) over the wellbeing of others
Isn't it the case that Buddhists aren't supposed to take any action that's stingy or leads to the harm of others? How could one then sacrifice someone's wellbeing for enlightenment?
I think the self-improvement focus is just to help people see that direct experience is more beneficial and instructive than anything else. It's not that you're supposed to regard your own wellbeing as more valuable

>>14345993
>Guenon himself picked Islam over Hinduism retard.
Yes, and in his letters he wrote that his doing so didnt imply the superiority of Islam over other traditional religions

>>14345539
>I just don't see the line of influence.
The pre-Buddhist Brihadaranyaka Upanishad seems to moreso the source of Buddhist ideas than the Chandogya (pic related)

>>14346687
Yes he did. He clearly thought it was superior to Judaism, Christianity and Buddhism, and on par with Hinduism. The only reason he didnt pick Hinduism is because it is almost entirely locked to India

>>14346833

"He (Guenon) said that he had not converted to Islam but “moved into” it: “whoever understands the unity of traditions . . . ,” he wrote, “is necessarily . . . ‘unconvertible’ to anything.” (21) Of his “moving into” Islam Guenon also wrote: “There is in it nothing that implies the superiority of one traditional form—in itself—over another, but merely what one could call reasons of spiritual convenience.” (22)


21. Guenon, in Etudes traditionnelles,1948, quoted in Jean-Pierre Laurant, “La ‘nonconversion’
de Rene´ Gue´non (1886–1951)” in De la conversion, ed. Jean-Christophe Attias
(Paris: Cerf, 1998), p. 139. Guenon wrote almost exactly the same thing in a letter
to Alain Danielou, August 27, 1947, quoted in Thierry Zarcone, “Relectures et transformations
de Soufisme en Occident,” Diogene 187 (January 2000), 145–60. The
phrase “move in” [s’installer] is used by Guenon elsewhere; Zarcone draws attention
to its significance in “Relectures et transformations.”

22. Guenon, letter to Pierre Colard, 1938, quoted in Laurant, “Non-conversion,”
p. 139.


Hinduism is not limited to India but Nepal and Bali are also majority Hindu. It was more convenient to enter into Islam for Guenon because it was right there on his doorstep. It's more complicated and requires more cultural adjustment/assimilation but there is nothing preventing westerners then or now from moving to a Hindu country and becoming a Hindu and being initiated etc.

>>14338647

>>14346847
>because it was right there on his doorstep
You know what else was right there on his doorstep?

Christianity.

Why didnt Guenon just stay as a Christian if he thought it was equal to Islam?

>>14346847
>There is in it nothing that implies the superiority of one traditional form—in itself—over another
Gods this is so gay. Does Traditionalism stem from some sort of testosterone deficiency?

zealotry > relativism

>>14346926
>Why didnt Guenon just stay as a Christian if he thought it was equal to Islam?
Because the Catholic church purged itself of almost all esotericism which might have otherwise allowed initiation into something approximating Traditional metaphysics etc, Catholicism/Christianity still had a completely valid origin in his view but needed some rejuvenation to restore these metaphysical/esoteric teachings. He decided not to personally take it upon himself to do so and instead focused on his own spiritual path.

>>14346944
So Catholicism IS inferior BECAUSE it purged all esoterism from its church.

Thanks, that was what I wanted to know.

>>14346944
>>14346952
Didnt Guenon denounce Gnosticism anyway?

>>14337706
>I'M SO SELFLESS I GOT ON MY KNEES AND SAID A PRAYER FOR MYSELF SO I DESERVE ETERNAL PARADISE IN HEAVEN.
chr*stoids are the most disgusting and loathsome creatures around. buddhism has a doctrine of vowing to go to hell and redeem all lost souls. meanwhile chr*stoid scums try to scurry to their "heaven" like rats jumping off a ship. where's the little goblin chr*stoid that plans to go to hell and redeem people? nowhere to be found, huh? so much for chr*stoid compassion. they want to relax in paradise while everybody else is in hell and they don't care.

>>14346952
Yes, it is if you are ranking them by acceptance of esoterism and non-dual metaphysics. In that letter he is not saying "all traditional religions have the exact same value and potential", he is just saying "my entering into Islam doesn't in and of itself imply Islam is better than Hinduism or Taoism etc", but he still clearly writes elsewhere in his books that Catholicism is somewhat lacking in the sense mentioned above.
>>14346963
Yes, although his criticism only applies to Sethian gnosticism, he said they were wrong for viewing the creator/world as malevolent, which Neoplatonism, Vedanta, Islam etc all disagree with. In any case Christian esoterism/gnosis =/= gnosticism in the sense of the historical movement.
>>14347005
>where's the little goblin chr*stoid that plans to go to hell and redeem people?
In Eastern Orthodox doctrine it's taught that Christ will eventually go down to hell and redeem and rescue all the souls there. Buddhists on /lit/ claim to be compassionate but in practice spend most of their time viciously attacking anyone who disagrees with Buddhism as deluded puthujjanas subscribing to wrong-view, papanca etc

>>14347110
WOW, chr*st will go redeem them sometime in the future, maybe, and a little group of people somewhere possibility believe it? WOAH, you're so brave and compassionate. i did notice how you didn't say YOU believe it. i did notice how you didn't say YOU plan to go redeem them instead you pass it off to somebody else, as a possibility, that a couple people may or may not even believe.

you're so selfless praying for yourself and wanting eternal paradise. it takes a brave soul to think when they die after barely living better than an anime for a couple dozen years they got eternal paradise. that's why chr*stoids are so compassionate and brave. cause you live like a dog and wish for others to go to hell and for rapture to happen so you can get paradise FOREVER.

i'm not a buddhist so i can shit on you chr*stoid turds as much i want

>>14346952
>So Catholicism IS inferior BECAUSE it purged all esoterism from its church.
No.

>>14346941
Its not relativism but pluralism

>>14347110
I am a Perennialist as well, but I disagree with both you and Guenon on that point, that all religions are equally valid.

take the example of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Although there is much value in the esoteric tradition of Judaism/Kabbalah, how can they have the whole truth if they dont believe that Jesus was the Messiah? And take on board the teachings of Jesus, who was himself practiced a form of Kabbalah.

And in the case of Christianity, you already said that it has been degraded by loss of its esoteric tradition. But how can Christians fully annihilate themselves in the Monad/Brahman, if they believe that Monad is actually a trinity? Without taking on board the true Monotheism of Islam, the tradition is lacking. (Although Gnostics did bypass this problem by believing in a true unified Monad)

Thats why I believe that Islam is the superior (of the three Abrahamic faiths) like how Vedantic Hinduism is the superior of the Dharmic religions (opposed to Jainism/Buddhism)

>>14347184
ok guenonfag

>>14347220
Im not him retard, Guenonfag just said he thinks all religions are equal, im disagreeing with him.

>>14347250
>>14347220

>>14347220
>>14347262
ok guénonposter.

>>14347267
>guénonposter
remember folks, he's afraid to propagate the use of the noun 'guenonfag', its his biggest identifier.

>inb4 he replies 'ok guénonposter' and outs himself again

>>14346847
>Hinduism is not limited to India but Nepal and Bali are also majority Hindu. It was more convenient to enter into Islam for Guenon because it was right there on his doorstep. It's more complicated and requires more cultural adjustment/assimilation but there is nothing preventing westerners then or now from moving to a Hindu country and becoming a Hindu and being initiated etc.
Outside of a few sects like the Arya Samaj, the Krishnas, etc. I don't see this working. Maybe if you wanted to be a renunciant. But there's no way you could get married.

>>14345108
I dunno. You can experience the stream of nibbana very briefly on the four paths of Theravada, but I can think of no benefits to denying yourself the fruition of your meditative endeavors. Wouldn't Theravadins do this while once-returning?