/lit/ - Literature

>>18479614
How anon?

>>18479614
Schopenhauer has convinced me that there is some merit to Eastern philosophy

They’re a pack of mongs

>>18479623
It skips all the mental masturbation and gets straight to the fundamental nature of reality

>>18479614
is this a good translation?

how about uppenisass

>>18479614
Based Upanichad

>>18480037
bump i have this one too but havent started it

>>18480037
I'd recommend Easwaran or Nikhilananda's translations.

>>18479614
>pajeet annihilationist shit
into the trash it goes

>>18479614
is advaita superior?

>>18479686
This.

>>18479614
If it did, it would have.

>>18480527
>>18480037
so which one should I read?

>>18480531
Yes, if you are going to read the whole Mandukya Karika you might as well read Shankara’s commentary on it. I think Nikhilananda has a translation of it with extensive notes. Reading some of Shankara’s Upanishad commentaries first will help a lot but it’s not necessary.

>>18479614
if its so good why is india such a shithole

>>18480874
>philosophy = love of wisdom
>the measure of wisdom is material wealth
okay brainlet, in any case India was one of the worlds wealthiest region for most of history, British exploitation messed up their transition to industrialization

>>18480863
Easwaran’s is more simplified

>>18480874
>he thinks the end of philosophy is in his """developed""" country

>>18479614
based self is immortal anon

>>18480527
>Nikhilananda
>nikhil=nihil=nothingness
>ananda=joy
>joy in nothingness
Advaita confirmed nihilistic

If it ends all philosophy then why is there still philosophy going in till this day?

>>18479686
Pretty based.

>>18481599
>Nikhil means complete, but I still find your argument persuasive.

>>18481599
>Nikhil (Sanskrit: निखिल) is a male name of Sanskrit origin. ... The name means "complete" or "whole". It is also another name of Lord Vishnu.

>>18479686
Based

>>18479614
real talk, i once ended a text to my indian boss where i was quitting by saying 'it just wasn't what the thunder said."

>>18483082
lmao ebic

>>18480869
You forgot to say "shorter" Upanishads. I almost didn't detect you.

>>18479614
what I learned from reading the hindus and their writings is that hindus would rather worship anything, including their own idealized consciousness or cows, before worshiping the living God who created them

>>18483855
amazing

>>18483860
amazing thank you

>>18483855
murtad posting

>>18479686
Except it's an Eastern understanding of nature, rather than a Western, and as a result the anti-self perspective is not "more true" than the Western conception of the self, but rather an Eastern variant.

>>18483082
I don't get it.
t. autist

>>18479614

>>18483855
>there is someone searching every thread, refreshing everyday just to find someone talking about hindu philosophy and post his image collection
You are a guenonian tsundere. If you want to learn about guenon and his ideas don't wait for a guenonfag to come and spoonfeed you. Go read him yourself.

the first suspect of the blatant inferiority of the asian "thought" in respect to europe should be their achievements in mathematics. we, with 1/100 of their population, had gauss when they were still at a pre-greek level. the jesuits in china and india made them flip out with the little math they knew.

>>18483855
Based. The worst thing about guenonfag is that any time there's a post relevant topics guenon discussed, you have to wonder whether it's just a guenon shill thread.

>>18484486

>>18484945
>defends people simulating conversations for the sake of shilling their favorite author

>>18484959
>implying that any conservations were actually simulated to begin with instead of schizos just being schizos

>>18483855
Very impressive, do you take adderall?

have people itt even read the upanishads? its schizo shit nothing like your typical package of ancient wisdom that states common sense and morality in outdated language

>>18484256
What would the Western alternative to the doctrine of no-self actually be? I'm not asking you to prove the existence of a soul, but given that the consistency and ontology of the self can doubted, what do we gain from keeping the 'selfhood' concept around?

>>18483855
unironically based

>>18484486
seconded, feels uncanny like talking to a sociopath when you realize it's him

>>18485040
>its schizo shit nothing like your typical package of ancient wisdom

"The Upanishads ... are among the noblest and most inspired books in the world; in them, the whole of the Indian wisdom is already contained; later teachers could but expand and comment on them, but in no way departed from this original treasure of wisdom." ... "The Upanishads teach the wisdom of Atma, the Supreme Self of all beings; the same divine Life which Philo of Alexandria later called the Logos, the Divine Mind, the collective spiritual consciousness of our universe. They tell us that, while each of us may seem to be a wanderer and exile, lonely, desolate in our world of shadow and of sorrow, we are in reality neither alone nor desolate, but undivided, unseparated rays of the Universal Self, the Logos. What is needed to secure our immortality—an immortality which is still conditional, until this victory is won—is the realization of our oneness with the Supreme Self. The Upanishads show how, step by step, we may mount the golden stairs; they tell us what we must leave behind; what we must gain, as we tread the small, old path; what we must achieve; with the promise that we shall in the fullness of time be initiated into the fullness of that eternal, universal Supreme Self of all beings. "The whole aim of their teachings is this: to point the path by which the personal self may win immortality and divinity, by becoming united with the Higher Self, which always possessed immortality and divinity."

>>18485060
None of those images actually ever provide proof that it's guenonfag simulating conversation, they're made by one guy with schizophrenic apophenia and you got lured into his fantasys

>>18485070
>an immortality which is still conditional
dropped

>>18485104
>Anonymous Wed Jan 20 14:31:08 2021 No.17336985 [View]
>I was not the person who posted those threads, I saw someone else say in another thread the other day that your various guenonfag image compilations that you’ve created reek strongly of schizophrenic apophenia, a diagnoses with which I’d agree

>Anonymous Mon Jan 4 15:18:25 2021 No.17201926 [View]
>All these images attributing certain posting styles to specific people (e.g. "guenonfag" here, "bumpfag" on /tg/, and so forth) reek strongly of schizophrenic apophenia. I do genuinely believe that too much anonymous posting irritates and exacerbates untenable modes of thought, and, indeed, awakens schizophrenic potential in latents.

>Anonymous Thu Feb 11 06:38:38 2021 No.17515367 [View]
>None of this is true, you just have schizophrenic apophenia and so everytime you see a post that you don’t like or that you think its me you attribute it to me, like less than 10% of the screencaps that you post are actually my posts, try seeing a psychiatrist and getting a script for Risperidone buddy

>Anonymous Thu Feb 11 07:37:09 2021 No.17515586 [View]
>Did you already forget that you have also accused me of being anti-semitic and right-wing? Why would I have a communist fursona then? It’s evidence of your schizophrenic apophenia that every single post related to Hinduism or Guenon that you find offensive or weird you wrongly attribute to me

>Anonymous Thu Feb 11 06:38:38 2021 No.17515367 [View]
>Not true, we have great discussions all the time. I have lost track of how many times people have thanked me for answering their questions. People talking about Hinduism in one thread and being critical of Buddhist doctrine is not “killing discussion”. In fact it’s me and the rest of the posters who usually engage in normal discussion while the Buddhists cry and whine about guenonfag in the background for the millionth time

Hello guenonfag

>>18485125
Hello schizo

>>18485155
phrenic apophenia?

>>18485168
You really seem to have focused on that one phrase. I guess it stuck out for you because of how much it hits home

>>18485040
>have people itt even read the upanishads?
No, they have not. To be fair, the Upanishads are an enormous collective body of literature covering almost 1,000 years. But then they don't need to, none of the Vedic commentators actually cared about "the Upanishads". Rather, they just need them to act as a universally agreed upon body that they can pull passages from in order to cite their views. Remember, all schools of Vedanta are saying what the Vedas ACTUALLY says, and other schools of Vedanta are just Vishnu making shit up to embarrass heretics. It's not really supposed to be coherent because it's just codified responses that occurred nestled deeply in a contextual environment that has now been lost to us. Imagine if some dude wrote down on vellum every post on /lit/ that he found profound, but didn't include the rest of the thread. He then does this for a decade. It's completely nonsensical because it is actually nonsense if you don't understand the webs in which the text has any meaning.

>>18485050
There are Western equivalents to no-self. Strictly speaking the traditional Indo-European conception of a being as composite (there are at minimum five Herculeses in the Odyssey; a Norseman was actually composed of like seven different things). The idea of an atman as some kind of discrete unchanging thing is a later invention, there are no Atmans to be found in the Pre-Socratic Greeks for example. In a very real sense a lot of "Post Modern Neo-Marxism subverting Traditionalistismistism through subjective morality" is really just faggy Frogs grappling with the simple reality of Sunyata (and lacking dharma thereby allowing them to make sense of it).

>what do we gain from keeping the 'selfhood' concept around
It lets you justify Liberalism.

its like 200 pages of someone masturbating to fire cows and lightning horses and whatever other crazy mythology gets them going, and is "philosophical" only insofar as the whole time theyre drawing equivalences between concepts based on what words sound like (the word for mind sounds like the word for breath sounds like the word for water sounds like the word for cake, etc); literally magical thinking.

its like that image of charlie from always sunny drawing connections between pictures taped to a board, except instead its some ancient russian who traveled too far south and contracted malaria or some shit

>>18485173
The way you fixated on accusing everybody of it for a while is interesting, mirroring behavior like that is a symptom of borderline personality disorder and sometimes narcissism

>>18485194
>accusing everybody of it
No, only of the person who posts and take seriously those images that reveal the apophenia of their creator, all the while having a similar writing style and having a weird personal fixation with someone who they (you) have been obsessing over for years.

>>18485184
>none of the Vedic commentators actually cared about "the Upanishads". Rather, they just need them to act as a universally agreed upon body that they can pull passages from in order to cite their views
That's nonsense, people like Shankara and others (Madhva, Rangaramanuja Muni) wrotes Upanishad commentaries where they comment on every verse and pay very close attention to the grammer and meaning of everything. That's just dishonest to say that they don't care about the central scriptures of their religion. Let me guess, you're a Buddhistcuck huh?

>>18485206
>Everyone who thinks all guenon posters with a similar behavior and writing style is a single "guenonfag" is a single "anti guenonfag fag" who has been gang stalking me for years

For your own mental health I hope you are just retarded and not this paranoid. You shitpost so much you are as recognizable and as much of a running board joke as buttercunt.

How many people do you think actively use /lit/?

>>18485230
>For your own mental health I hope you are just retarded and not this paranoid
I'm not, I can tell when it's you posting those images versus other people posting them or replying to them because none of the other posters have the same barely-constrained paranoid seething over the fact of my existence

>>18485240
Now you're absorbing "paranoid" from me, mirroring again

I hope you find some peace in your life

>>18485219
>guenonfag hasn't read anything by shankara
This is embarrassing, dude. It's one thing to refuse to read Nagarjuna because he proves you wrong, it's another thing to shill this hard for a dude whose works you refuse to read.

>>18485040
> nothing like your typical package of ancient wisdom that states common sense and morality in outdated language
you had my curiosity
> its schizo shit
but now you have my attention

>>18485251
>I hope you find some peace in your life
I do, that's how I'm able to constantly BTFO buddhists, hylics and atheist dimwits like you constantly, because my refutations proceed from the plenitude of my inexhaustible tranquility
>>18485256
>This is embarrassing, dude.
I've read like 90+% of his writings, I doubt you've read more than a few pages off them.

>>18485284
ESL?

>>18485286
No, English is my native language.

>>18485260
The Vedas is a collection of oral literature concerning various rituals and stories and how to perform these rituals. How to perform a wedding, how to perform a funeral, hymns to Agni, Indra telling a story (that has to be recited as part of a ritual in which a king is crowned), etc. Hindus believe that the Vedas are ontologically fundamental to the universe, derived from the syllable Om; a spiritually advanced individual anywhere in the world could sit down, meditate on Om, and derive the Vedas whole cloth. Shankara's rejection of this is why most Hindus do not consider him to be "a Hindu". The Vedas date to around 1,300BC.

The Upanishads are a later series of commentaries on the Upanishads. It's essentially some dude coming up with an explanation of one single thing (for example, why pouring cow's milk onto a fire is considered an offering but why pouring piss onto a fire is a grave sin). Only, it's completely devoid of context, so you just have a line or two babbling about something. Historically, understanding this context was absolutely key. The Abrahamic idea of a self-contained "book" isn't found here, you CANNOT understand the Upanishads in a vacuum (it's literal gibberish if you don't). In part this is because the Upanishads aren't written by "one guy" (Hindus claim that they were written by the sage Vyasa, we know this to be false unless you buy into the belief that Vyasa was immortal and is still around; the Upanishads are composed by many people between 800BC and 300AD). So, as anon said up thread, they're just a collection of miscellaneous fragments devoid of context talking about some dude's explanation of why some very specific thing works the way it does.

Every school of Vedanta argues that THEY have the true interpretation of the Vedas/Upanishads. For example, Ramanuja and Vallabhacharya argue a form of Monism akin to Spinoza's, Shankara argues for nihilism, and Madhvacharya argues for something akin to the modern Abrahamic idea of a Creator God and discrete Souls.

>>18485302
>Shankara argues for nihilism,
kek

>>18485321
Hindus believe that to be the case, yes.

>>18485302
>a spiritually advanced individual anywhere in the world could sit down, meditate on Om, and derive the Vedas whole cloth.
That's wrong, they say that the Upanishads were uniquely revealed to Vedic sages, rishis, not that anyone can do the same by meditating on Om, this is a lie
>Shankara's rejection of this is why most Hindus do not consider him to be "a Hindu". Shankara doesn't reject anything about the Vedas, this is a lie
>The Upanishads are a later series of commentaries on the Upanishads
They are commentaries on the Vedas, not themselves, although the Upanishads sometimes seem to quote and reference each other
> Only, it's completely devoid of context,
No they are not, the Upanishads are sometimes related to the Vedic portion they are placed next to, and the Upanishads themselves provide their content through the parables which they weave
>(it's literal gibberish if you don't).
No it's not, this is a lie, some of them contain clear dialogues between people
>Shankara argues for nihilism,
No he doesn't, this is a lie, Shankare argues that Brahman alone exists as the infinite and eternal all-pervasive intelligent Entity, this isn't nihilism which means that nothing whatsoever exists. Saying Brahman exists is mutually exclusive with nihilism

Can you fuck off back to your faggot buddhist threads instead just repeating a bunch of lies? You do know that lying isn't allowed in Buddhism right?

>>18484286
reference to t.s. eliot's reference to the upanishads

>>18485342
Why should anyone care about your opinion? By your own admission you haven't read anything by Shankara, or any other Hindu thinker.

>>18485346
>By your own admission you haven't read anything by Shankara, or any other Hindu thinker.
That's not true, that's another lie of yours. I've read most of Shankara's works and have never said otherwise. If I hadn't read Shankara's works, how could I be constantly refuting Buddhists using his arguments like I am known to do so often?

>>18485342
>>(it's literal gibberish if you don't).
>No it's not, this is a lie, some of them contain clear dialogues between people
lmfao holy shit you need to take a break from the internet before you burst a blood vessel if you are getting this angry man

>>18485356
Why did you endorse Hirst's book that says Shankara was a cryptobuddhist?

>>18485358
>before you burst a blood vessel if you are getting this angry man
I never get angry because I understand the supreme truth of non-duality as explained by Sri Shankaracharya (pbuh), there is fundamentally only one sentient Entity, the Atman. I'm simply refuting the fallacious claims of other insentient minds laboring under their delusions, even though their mind and my mind alike are illumined by the same non-dual infinite presence of God. I can't ever get angry though because I know that there isn't another existing consciousness.

>>18485362
Because I liked certain portions of it, while disagreeing with others. Because I'm capable of nuanced thought, I'm able to recommend books which are good for certain reasons even if they say one or two things which I disagree with. I dont have ridiculous purity tests which I subject everything to.

Any debate on the actual details of doctrine will immediately show that the ontology, epistemology, metaphysics etc of Buddhism and Advaita are diametrically opposed to one another.

There are much better books than Hirsts written before 2000 btw, and there may be much better books written after 2000, I just have not had the time to examine all the post-2000 books yet.

>>18485381
That doesn't really answer the question, why did you say that a book calling Shankara a cryptobuddhist was "the best" book on Shankara?

You say it's because the "actual details" will reveal Buddhism and Advaita are opposed, but Hirst says they aren't opposed. Hirst says clearly that Shankara is a cryptobuddhist who took his main ideas from Buddhism. You said Hirst is the best book on the topic.

>>18485398
>why did you say that a book calling Shankara a cryptobuddhist was "the best" book on Shankara?
Because I liked some of her discussions about his writing. That comment is only made in a few places, it's not what the book is about.
>but Hirst says they aren't opposed.
She presents a simplified view that ignores the differences

She states that Shankara criticized Buddhism, and she admits in that pic that other scholars deny they are similar.

She states that the Advaita and Shunyavadin Buddhist positions on two truths are "close" she doesn't say identical. And she omits the very important fact that for Buddhists the absolute reality doesn't have its own independent existence, which for Advaitins it does, and this totally changes the meaning of what they are speaking about.

>>18485419
>She presents a simplified view that ignores the differences
The writer of the best book on Shankara has a "simplified" view according to random guy on the internet? Her view is that Shankara is a cryptobuddhist and she seems to know what she's talking about

She says
>The historical source of Samkara's teaching on the 'two truths' is almost certainly the Madhyamika Buddhists

That would make all the accusations about Shankara being a cryptobuddhist true. You said this is the best book and it says Shankara is a cryptobuddhist!

>>18485427
>The writer of the best book on Shankara has a "simplified" view
I didn't say she has the "best book" you dummy, I said out of the post-2000 ones it was one of the best.

The best books on Advaita are Guenon's, Elliot Deutsch's and Chandradhar Sharma's, none of whom say Shankara is a crypto-Buddhism

>>The historical source of Samkara's teaching on the 'two truths' is almost certainly the Madhyamika Buddhists
She herself admits that the distinction of Absolute vs lower knowledge is found in the Upanishads, she doesn't adduce any good arguments for why the source of Advaita doctrine must have been Buddhism. Any claim that is offered without any supporting arguments can be dismissed.

>>18485451
This seems like a lot of backpedalling... Are you sure you don't want to just admit that the book you said was the best on this topic, the one that says Shankara is a cryptobuddhist, is correct?

She is in agreement with the entire establishment, and with Hindus in India. Even Sharma says pic related.

>>18485464
>Even Sharma says pic related.
There he is saying that Mahayana copied ideas from the Upanishads, he isn't saying in that image that Advaita took ideas from Mahayana.

In pic related Sharma writes: Gaudapada (not Shankara) agrees with some Mahayana doctrines, because these HAVE BEEN BORROWED FROM THE UPANISHADS AND CANNOT BE SAID TO BE THE ORIGINAL CONTRIBUTION OF BUDDHA OR BUDDHISTS.

>>18485477
So Sharma has to claim that the philosophy of the Upanishads is identical with Mahayana Buddhism, because he admits that Advaita is practically identical with Mahayana, so to deny this would mean denying that Advaita is the philosophy of the Upanishads

Your favorite writer Hirst was right, advaita is cryptobuddhism.

>>18485504
>So Sharma has to claim that the philosophy of the Upanishads is identical with Mahayana Buddhism,
No, he is saying that some Mahayana appropriated ideas which already existed in the Upanishads, he isn't saying the Mahayana is identical to the Upanishads because he elsewhere condemns as incorrect Mahayana philosophers like Dharmakirti.

>because he admits that Advaita is practically identical with Mahayana
No he doesnt, he says that Buddhism is wrong for denying the Atman, and here in this pic >>18485477 he states that Gaudapada brings out the philosophical soundness of Vedanta over Buddhism

And Sharma himself clearly states in his books that Advaita is the philosophy of the Upanishads on numerous occasions, such as on the very first page in the introduction to his book "the Advaita Tradition" where he states "Advaitavada is
found well established in the Upanisads as their central teaching." see pic related

>>18485533
No, Sharma said Mahayana "elaborated" and "developed" the ideas of the Upanishads and that Gaudapada was then "influenced" by Mahayana

You are backpedalling hard because you endorsed Hirst, the best book on Shankara according to YOU, which says that Shankara is a cryptobuddhist. Like every other book, even Sharma. Just like Shankara, when he became a cryptobuddhist nihilist, you defeated yourself.

Also you used to say Olivelle was the best translator and writer on the Upanishads and he says Advaita is not in the Upanishads. You used to say the same thing about Muller too and he says the Upanishads are not Advaita too. All your favorite authors betray you. You should just admit, like your favorite book Hirst does, that Shankara is a cryptobuddhist.

>>18485541
>Gaudapada was then "influenced" by Mahayana
In terms of agreeing with some of their arguments, Sharma never says once that Gaudapada took doctrines from Mahayana which are not the doctrines of the Upanishads, arguments =/= doctrines

> the best book on Shankara according to YOU
Wrong, the best are Sharma's, Guenon's and Elliott's
>Olivelle was the best translator and writer on the Upanishads
I never did
>You used to say the same thing about Muller too
I didnt say that either

>>18485599
Yes you did, stop lying. You also said Hirst was the best book on Advaita. You know what Hirst said, right?

Hirst said that Shankara is a cryptobuddhist. Your favorite author, the one you recommended!

>>18485613
>Yes you did, stop lying.
No I didn't
>You also said Hirst was the best book on Advaita
only post-2000, not the best book ever, Sharma's, Guenon's and Elliotts are much better than hers
> Your favorite author, the one you recommended!
She isn't my favorite by any means,

>>18485628
Yes she is. You said she's the best. Then she said "Shankara is a cryptobuddhist." I remember it well because I laughed real hard at how your own "best" book says Shankara is a cryptobuddhist. It was great!

What other books do you have to recommend that call Shankara a cryptobuddhist? We've been through Muller, Olivelle, Hirst, Sharma.. All of them say Advaita is cryptobuddhism. Even Eliot admits direct influence in his source book.

>>18485654
>You said she's the best.
best of post-2000 =/= best in general
>Even Eliot admits direct influence in his source book.

He says:

>In any event a close relationship between the Mahāyāna schools and Vedānta did exist with the latter borrowing some of the dialectical techniques, if not the specific doctrines, of the former. Śankara’s criticisms of Buddhism are nevertheless powerful and they exhibit clearly at least how Śankara saw the difference between Buddhism and his own Vedāntic philosophy

So he is saying that the Vedanta approved of some arguments of the Buddhists, and that they may have borrowed some doctrines but that this latter isn't clear. That's not saying unequivocally that Vedanta took doctrines from Buddhism. That's just alluding to how some scholars think that. Nowhere does Eliot say what he thinks these specific ideas that Advaita took are.

>>18485707
So the best book since 2000 says Shankara is a cryptobuddhist? Like every other book

Here, your other favorite Eliot, not denying the cryptobuddhism charges, and admitting that Buddhist monasticism was possibly copied by Shankara too

>>18485757
>>18485541
fair but.... from my reading of hindus and such writings its obvious they will worship anything, including their own idealized consciousness and even cows, before worshiping the living God who created them

>>18485757
>and admitting that Buddhist monasticism was possibly copied by Shankara too
No, he says "might also", that's saying it's possible but not clearly the case. Learn to read you dumbass.

That a monastic institution within Hinduism is attested to from long before Shankara is clear from that the earliest pre-Buddhist Upanishads praise monasticism, and the Brahma Sutras from centuries before Shankara also contain instructions for ejecting people from their monastic order if they violate the rule of celibacy.

>>18485886
"Might also" means "in addition to this being possibly the case, this is also possibly the case"

Eliot thinks the cryptobuddhism charge is plausible and goes out of his way to add that Shankara copied monasticism. He also says clearly that formal monasticism was "quite foreign to the Hindu tradition." Nobody cares what you think. You just told us Eliot is the best writer on this topic and he contradicts you.

>>18485895
>this is also possibly the case"
key word "possibly"
>goes out of his way to add that Shankara copied monasticism
"possibly" copied it, I just listed evidence for the contrary side though
> Nobody cares what you think
Then why are you replying to me?
>You just told us Eliot is the best writer on this topic and he contradicts you.
I listed him as one of 3, and he only speculates about possibilities, he doesn't commit himself to accepting as more than a possibility any position which I disagree with

>>18485911
Correct, Eliot Deutsch thinks Advaita at least took its "method" from Mahayana and just changed the doctrine to Brahman. But he also thinks it's possible there was much more influence, which would make him agree with every other authority on this issue and every writer you recommend.

>Then why are you replying to me?
To tell you that yet another book you said is the best book on the topic says that monasticism is foreign to the Hindu tradition. If you disagree with that you disagree with your own authorities. You haven't even read Shankara so they outrank you.

>>18479665
Esoteric wisdom is never the purview of the peasantry.

>>18485920
>at least took its "method" from Mahayana and just changed the doctrine to Brahman
Wrong, Eliot never says this, the few dialectical arguments of Advaita which are similar to Buddhisms (they have many others which have no relation to Buddhism) are not the "method" of Advaita, they are unimportant to Advaita and not a central part of their method of spiritual practice and instruction.
> possible
He says its possible but doesn't commit himself to stating that view is correct
>You haven't even read Shankara so they outrank you.
I've read most of his works, why do you keep pretending I have not read him?

Wow jannies deleted the Shankara thread. They are suppressing Advaita now

>>18483855
GenonChad(pbuh) is a master. You're beginning to understand his works through preliminary exegesis. Keep going!

>>18485936
Learn to read. Then read Shankara.

Nice dodge of the monasticism issue. One of your best books, Deutsch, says monasticism was foreign to Hinduism. Look! It's even more sources that show this is the standard view.

It's almost as if you shouldn't get your understanding of Hinduism from youtube videos about Rene Guenon.

>>18485943
Jannies are Theravadrists.

Can someone explain to me what is the difference between citta and vijnana?

>>18485950
>Then read Shankara.
I have

>Nice dodge of the monasticism issue.
That Shankara helped strengthened the pre-existing monastic tradition which he himself joined (His guru Govindapada and his great-guru Gaudapada were members of this exact same monastic tradition) doesn't prove that there wasn't prior Hindu monastic traditions in the thousand years between Shankara and the earliest Upanishads. Shankara cites the works of some 99 writers who predated him, none of whose writings survive, that doesn't mean they didnt exist.

The codification of the role of the ascetic renunciant (sannyasin) as the final Ashrama (life stage) in the dharmasastra texts (predating Shankara) wouldn't have been done if monasticism wasn't long a part of Hinduism, nor would the Brahma Sutras from centuries before Shankara would have been talking about expelling monastics for violating celibacy.

>The Dharmasūtras and Dharmaśāstras, composed about mid 1st millennium BC and later, place increasing emphasis on all four stages of Ashrama system including Sannyasa.[42] The Baudhayana Dharmasūtra, in verses 2.11.9 to 2.11.12, describes the four Ashramas as "a fourfold division of Dharma"

>r understanding of Hinduism from youtube videos about Rene Guenon.
The great and incomparable Rene Guenon was right about everything, so just by studying him, anyone can come to the correct opinions

>>18485974
clit and vagina? get married and you'll find out

>>18485999
You clearly haven't.

Nothing you said relates to what Deutsch said. Deutsch says that monasticism was foreign to the Hindu tradition, cryptobuddhist. Guenon was a second rate neo vedantist.

>>18485974
>citta and vijnana?
Chit in Hindu terminology refers to consciousness/awareness, while Vijnana in the context of Buddhist philosophy like Yogachara refers to specific mental ideations like thoughts or sensations that are the contents of one's awareness. In Advaita Vedanta what Buddhists call vijnana would be equated with Vritti's, and not chit.

Chit and Citta have different meanings, although the Pali word Citta may be derived from the Sanskrit Chit, Citta is a Pali word used in the Pali Canon to refer to mind, apparently Hindu texts like the Yoga Sutras use Citta as synonyms for mind/ego/intellect, which would be considered by Advaita for example to all be different from Chit/consciousness.

>>18486008
>You clearly haven't.
What do you mean? I can speak about Shankara's writings and doctrines at length from any angle, all you have to do is ask to test my knowledge.

>Deutsch says that monasticism was foreign to the Hindu tradition, cryptobuddhist
Then I know better than him on that question, as there are a plethora of Hindu texts endorsing it from centuries before Shankara. It's not realistic for me to expect that every book I endorse is written by someone with the same comprehensive knowledge that I have.

>>18486073
You know better than yet another expert. Here's another one you cited as authoritative.

>Buddhist practices such as ahimsa (non-violence) and monasticism were also introduced into Shankara’s system. In fact, Shankara was the first to introduce monasticism into orthodox Hinduism.

Uh oh... Looks like everybody you've ever cited is disagreeing with you again. Better pull rank on him too.

>>18486089
>You know better than yet another expert.
Yes, I am pretty smart after all

>Buddhist practices such as ahimsa (non-violence) and monasticism were also introduced into Shankara’s system.
Ahimsa comes from the 7th century BC Chandoya Upanishad which predates Buddhism, this is just another example of how I myself am more informed than these so-called "experts"

Now Tapas (austerity, meditation), Dāna (charity, alms-giving), Arjava (sincerity, uprightness and non-hypocrisy), Ahimsa (non-violence, don't harm others) and Satya-vacanam (telling truth), these are the Dakshina (gifts, payment to others) he gives [in life].

—Chandogya Upanishad 3.17.4

>In fact, Shankara was the first to introduce monasticism into orthodox Hinduism.
That's not true, since the pre-Buddhist Upanishads in particular Brihadaranyaka teach and praise monasticism, and most of the Dharmasastra texts from before Shankara enjoin Sannyasin (monasticism) as the fourth life-stage (Ashrama), and this is easily verifiable

>>18486128
It's you vs. Eliot Deutsch and ten other experts I've quoted. I accept your usual admission of defeat, googling quotes.

Some advice. Stop cherry picking quotes of Shankara and actually go read him for once. It's clear to several people now that you never have.

>>18486162
>It's you vs. Eliot Deutsch and ten other experts I've quoted
And I've demonstrated with evidence that my view is correct over theirs
>Stop cherry picking quotes of Shankara and actually go read him for once.
I have
> It's clear to several people now that you never have.
major cope

>>18481826
>If it ends all philosophy then why is there still philosophy going in till this day?
Because they didnt get the message or failed to understand it

>>18479614

>If the conviction, 'I am nothing but Existence and am ever free' were impossible to be attained, why should the Śruti teach us that so affectionately like a mother?

- Adi Shankara, Upadesasahasri 18.3

>>18486045
Thanks

>>18479686
Based.

bump

>>18486642
>mahabharata mogs all other planets in the vedic solar system

>>18479686
Based.

>>18486128
>>18486073
Its telling the 99% of anything you say is about what people say about the Upanishads and never about the text itself. I don't actually have a problem with Guenon, but I don't think you care about his teaching at all. I wasn't even sure this was a Guenon thread I mostly posted the accusation as a joke, which is why I didn't dump the rest of the infographs.

It would be nice if we could actually discuss Hinduism and Buddhism on /lit/ and come to an independent understanding of the teachings. I don't think you want that, it is clear that Guenon is a political project for you. You are not actually interested in his religious studies or finding spiritual truths. You are only interested in confusing people and spreading disinformation to align them with your politics dishonestly for material reasons. You are the Hylic you accuse others to be.

>>18486946
>you say is about what people say about the Upanishads and never about the text itself
That's not true anon, I post about them all the time with people who are willing to have a discussion on them, but not a large amount of people here have read them, much less read classical commentaries on them. Just the other day I was trying to engage with someone on whether the Upanishads are more in support of Advaita or Vishishtadvaita and I presented a whole page of citations and questions I had about how the other person would interpret them.

>It would be nice if we could actually discuss Hinduism and Buddhism on /lit/ and come to an independent understanding of the teachings
These discussions do occur from time to time.

>I don't think you want that, it is clear that Guenon is a political project for you. You are not actually interested in his religious studies or finding spiritual truths.
That's a ridiculous assumption, I'm more interesting in the material than Guenon himself, I've read multiple thousands of pages of translated Sanskrit primary source writings, and less than half of Guenon's books. Guenon for me was mostly a means for me to get into the primary source literature, although I still love and agree with him.

I've explained parts of the Upanishads to other people here before and been thanked for doing so. You shouldn't make such strained assumptions.

>>18480918
>British exploitation messed up their transition to industrialization
more like fast tracked their transition.

>>18486320
>Because they didnt get the message or failed to understand it
or maybe it just wasn't that well written. what can you expect when the same hands that wiped feaces off one's ass is used to write such divine secrets? what can you expect but shit to come off those brown fingers dripping all over the scripture

>>18487264
No, the British made them focus on growing and making things that could be exported to Britain to be put into British manufacturing chains, instead of setting up their own self-sustainable manufacturing base.

>>18485952
>>18485943
I think some of them are definitely Buddhists, the threads relating to Hinduism seem to get moved to /his/ or deleted at a much higher rate than ones related to Buddhism

>>18479686
based

>>18486974
Come on man. If you want to make a ride the tiger kali yuga general just do it. You are just making people hate Guénon by being deceptive.

>>18487845
>by being deceptive.
I'm not

>>18480187
kek, I will pray for you when I will remember your joke

>>18485050
>what do we gain from keeping the 'selfhood' concept around?
Western civilization

>>18488949
Thank Dharmanon

>>18489500
*thanks

>>18480037
try this one anon

>>18479686
no it dosnt, it has even more bollocks in it such as pages and pages of horse sacrifice nonsense, and other schizoid rambalings

>>18490066
those are incidental to the main discussions concerning metaphysics and gnosis which take up much more of the text of the Upanishads

>>18486642
>>18486653
Which is the BEST Upanishad?

>>18492407
Chandogya
Brihadaranyaka
Katha
In no particular order

>>18485999
Those texts you cite are all post-buddhist lol

>>18492799
The Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, one of the greatest and largest Upanishads, dates from centuries before Buddha and it praises monastic renunciation and portrays the sage Yajnavalkya as giving up his home and and possessions to become a ascetic monk. Thus, monasticism was already an integral part of Hinduism before Buddha was even born. The closer you study the pre-Buddhist Upanishads the clearer it becomes how unoriginal Buddhism was.

> Maitreyi, my dear, said Yajiiavalkya, ' I am going to renounce this life. · Allow me to finish between you and Katyayani.
> Thereupon Maitreyi said, ' Sir, if indeed this whole earth full of wealth be mine, shall I be immortal through that? ' 'No,' replied Yajnavalkya, 'your life will be just like that of people who have plenty of things, but there is no hope of immortality through wealth. '
- Brihadaranyaka 2.4.1-2

> Then Kahola, the son of Kusitaka, asked him. ' Yajnavalkya,' said he, ' explain to me the Brahman that is immediate and direct-the self that is within all.' 'This is your self that is within all.' 'Which is within all, Yajnavalkya ?' 'That which transcends hunger and thirst, grief, delusion, decay and death. Knowing this very Self the Brahmanas renounce the desire for sons, for wealth and for the worlds, and lead a mendicant life.
- Brihadaranyaka 3.5.1

> Knowing It alone one becomes a sage. Desiring this world (the Self) alone monks renounce their homes. This is (the reason for it): The ancient sages, it is said, did not desire children (thinking), 'What shall we achieve through children, we who have attained this Self, this world (result).' They, it is said, renounced their desire for sons, for wealth and for the worlds, and lived a mendicant life.
- Brihadaranyaka 4.4.22

>>18479686
based

>>18493056
Renunciation is not the same as a monastic order, this is basic stuff. There were lineages of vedic teachers but nothing like the later Buddhist sangha.

>>18493056
The EBT (early Buddhist Texts) frequently bear the stamp of influence from Brahmanical literature in their literary style. The most obvious is the poetry, where we find that the metres are developed from Vedic precedent [6,15–16]. Likewise, the characteristic feature of framing narratives is derived from the Vedas [5]. In the Vedas we also find the models for such organising principles as the Saṁyutta principle of grouping texts by topic,3 and the Aṅguttara principle of grouping them according to number [2, 23–24] [3, 101]. The EBT frequently share metaphors and imagery with the Vedic literature. Indeed, we can point to several shared similes in just one Upaniṣadic passage, the dialogue between Yājñavalkya and his wife Maitreyī: the origin of the sound of the conch or the lute, (DN 23.19/DĀ 7/MĀ 71/T 45 vs. Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad 2.4.7–9), the rivers that merge in the ocean (AN 8:19 vs. Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad 2.4.11), and the ocean that every- where has one taste, the taste of salt (AN 8.157 vs. Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad 2.4.11)

>>18493084
That was just the formalization of something which already existed informally, which was inevitable. The Upanishads already stress the importance of the lineage of one’s teacher and being initiated only by someone who is qualified, it was only a matter of time until people began to codify lineages of people who became monks as the Upanishads instructed. The arising of formal monastic orders cannot be chalked up to automatic Buddhist influences since the Jains and other sramanics groups like the Ājīvikas had long had their own organized monastic groups too. If the mere fact of simply coming earlier in time is accepted as proof of automatic influence then the very notion of monasticism itself in Buddhism can be chalked up to Upanishadic influence on Buddhism, along with avidya, karma, rebirth/transmigration, the notion that everything except the Absolute is perishable, apophatic negation, the abandoning of desire, de-identitication with the psycho-physical aggregate, the unborn nature of the Absolute and so much else, the Upanishads dont always teach these ideas in the *exact* same way as Buddhism but those ideas are all found in Upanishads from centuries before Buddha, so Buddhists are throwing stones in a glass house when they play influence-games.

>>18493413
I am not a Buddhist, and your answer is extremely speculative. Monasticism is not in the earliest Upanishads, and the relationship between brahmanism and the shramana movements is still debated. Influence clearly went both ways.

>>18494300
>Monasticism is not in the earliest Upanishads
That’s completely wrong, the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad is the very earliest Upanishad, its predates Buddha by a century or two and there are three different passages from that same Upanishad posted here >>18493056 which are all unequivocally talking about monasticism. The verses are not ambiguous at all but they are very clearly talking about monasticism and renouncing ones homes, family etc to live the mendicant (monastic) life.
> Influence clearly went both ways.
This isn’t actually clear, because there are no known non-Brahmanical texts before the Upanishads which talk about monasticism and related ideas like ahimsa, karma etc at all.

guenonfag in a cope spiral as everyone gives up on talking to him bump

>>18479614
What is the definitive version of the upanishads in English?

>the upanichads

>>18495987
Olivelle is the best english scholarly one, his critical edition is quoted in this picture >>18485541

>>18479686
no it doesnt kek yall just want another plato that wasn't btfo'd by hegel in time

>>18496082
Plato and Hegel alike are mere newborn pups before the timeless grandeur of the Upanichads

>>18479614
Too much cow poo obsession

>>18496272
>youre actually just consciousness bro trust me bro your body is nothing bro source: dude weed lmao
very profound kek

>>18496313

>>18496396
your myopia is astounding. until you read the proper texts, and See, chances are a turbodyke from the xenomarxist future utopia will enroll you in their compulsory feminization and re-education program.

>>18496463
cringe

>>18485325
>Hindus
You mean a bunch of losers on /lit/. Shankara is considered a national hero.

>>18494522
>which are all unequivocally talking about monasticism. The verses are not ambiguous at all but they are very clearly talking about monasticism and renouncing ones homes, family etc to live the mendicant (monastic) life.
You don't seem to understand that being a renunciate is not the same as a formal monastic community. The earliest Upanishads don't mention the latter, just individuals becoming renunciates.

>>18485184
>It lets you justify Liberalism.
Selfhood is not Enlightenment individuality you brainlet.

Unironically read Heidegger.

>>18499122

> Definition of monastic (Entry 1 of 2)
>1 : of or relating to monasteries or to monks or nuns

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/monastic

Monasticism is monasticism, whether individual or in a group. The word monasticism doesn’t only refer to organized groups of multiple monks (setting aside that the Brihadaranyaka says ‘monks’ i.e. plural, more than one). So your statement “there is no monasticism in the earliest Upanishads” is still demonstrably wrong.

>>18488991
What a stupid reply, especially as the answer would have more fittingly been 'christianity'.

>>18479686
this

>>18496463
hot

>>18479614
Did you know if you breathe into a girl's mouth and then suck it out quickly while fucking and saying "I rebuke my breath and my seed shall not take root" you won't get a girl pregnant?

>>18479686
>It skips all the mental masturbation and gets straight to
being completely wrong

>>18500421
Also that if if you spill cum on the ground you should rub it between your fingers in front of your forehead to retain your male vitality.

>tfw i'll never get to subscribe to a profound metaphysical system that moggs all the silly attempts at philosophy by the Abrahamics while continually worshiping the gods of my ancestors
feelsbadman

>>18500421
>>18500837
Sounds based.

>>18500868
At least you're not a poo.