Buddhism vs Advaita Vedanta

[Anonymous No.16492275]

Designated thread for controversies between schools of Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta.

Last Thread: >>16475199

[Anonymous No.16492343]

>>16492297
>Because it is you.
Do you really not understand the issue here, or are you just down to dogmatism at this point?
>You’re like an eye in a world without reflections telling itself that it isn’t an eye because it can’t see itself.
I admit I do like this simile though. However, it also highlights how your school prefers elegant imagery over reasoned arguments.

[Anonymous No.16492392]

Buddhists are absolute Chads

[Anonymous No.16492447]

>>16492343
>Do you really not understand the issue here, or are you just down to dogmatism at this point?
What do you think you are? Do you think you’re a subject or an object?
>I admit I do like this simile though. However, it also highlights how your school prefers elegant imagery over reasoned arguments.
It really is as simple as that. Ultimately, I’m not going to convert you to Advaita if you’re mind is set on Buddhism. If you don’t think Being is a self-evident, axiomatic proof for the eternal eye, be a Buddhist.

[Anonymous No.16492459]

Holy shit why has /lit/ been jerking off to this topic for the last week? There's nothing more to be said

[Anonymous No.16492472]

>>16492447
>Do you think you’re a subject or an object?
begging the question, as usual...

[Anonymous No.16492476]

>>16492392
Why are they so fit, fitness is pure ego. wasn't all about the rejection of suffering and vanity and all?

[Anonymous No.16492488]

>>16492476
a strong mind goes in tandem with a strong body, worldlings wouldn't understand

[Anonymous No.16492501]

>>16492447
>I’m not going to convert you to Advaita
was this the whole point of this and the previous thread? to proselytize for Advaita/Traditionalism on an anime board? you really are taking this LARPfest to a whole new level...

[Anonymous No.16492541]

>>16492472
Sometimes I think that Buddhists are actually NPCs and only have a faux awareness of themselves and thus can’t comprehend the difference between mind and consciousness.

[Anonymous No.16492558]

>>16492501
Calling it advaita for short is misleading. Both systems being debated in these threads are non-dual. One is theistic and the other is not-theistic.

[Anonymous No.16492575]

>>16492541
Everyone is an NPC until he is enlightened. Samsara is scripted.

[Anonymous No.16492581]

>>16492488
>>a strong mind goes in tandem with a strong body,
no it does not

[Anonymous No.16492638]

>>16492575
Enlightenment is realize that you are God. For a Buddhist enlightenment is realizing everything is no-thing, which is true because the Self can never be made into an object (thing), but Buddhism itself is only a half-truth, evident by its cognitive dissonance and blatant sophistry when it comes to Being.

[Anonymous No.16492647]

>>16492638
realizing* I hate posting on a phone.

[Anonymous No.16492660]

>Enlightenment is realize that you are God

[Anonymous No.16492666]

You probably could have just let the thread die, dude. The Buddhists had peaced out for the day, so there was no more effortposting to be had.

[Anonymous No.16492697]

>>16492581
Strong bodies build strong minds

[Anonymous No.16492716]

>>16492581
Yes it does. A strong mind isn't necessarily an intelligent one. You can't get muscles like that if your mind isn't strong, you wouldn't have the discipline.

[Anonymous No.16492734]

>>16492666
>dude
>peaced out for the day
Skinny-fat stoners will become the new face of Buddhism.

[Anonymous No.16492741]

>>16492697
>>16492716
You don't know what a strong mind mean sin buddhism.
Stick to your local YMCA.

[Anonymous No.16492821]

>>16492660
>enlightenment is realizing that I don’t exist
>ultimately realize that there is no self to be enlightened
>buddhists never reach enlightenment

[Anonymous No.16492843]

>>16492638
>realize that you are God.

such a cringy cope. what kind of a life ends up creating something that can fall for this?

[Anonymous No.16492896]

>>16492843
>subject =/= object
>the subject perceives the body, so the subject can’t be the body
>the subject perceives the mind, so the subject can’t be the mind
>this is where Buddhism ends
>Advaita continues and says that the subject can never be objectified
>trying to perceive the subject is like an eye trying to see itself
>this, however, does not mean that the eye isn’t there
>sight makes the existence of the eye self-evident
>buddhists, like the reddit-tier nihilists they are, do mental gymnastics to try to deconstruct their own subject
>they never realize that it’s the subject that’s aware of all of this
Accept Self.

[Anonymous No.16492964]

>>16492541
> thus can’t comprehend the difference between mind and consciousness.
This is exactly what most schools of Buddhism insist, that there is no observing consciousness different from the mind but only individual thoughts, sensory perceptions etc which is why it was so easy for Shankara to refute their teachings about consciousness and the mind

[Anonymous No.16493056]

>>16492964
>which is why it was so easy for Shankara to refute their teachings about consciousness and the mind
True, but how do we show them the light of their own consciousness? Are they doomed?

[Anonymous No.16493108]

>>16492896
The eye that cannot see itself or the blade that cannot slice itself are used to explain epistemology. Neither absolutely exists for us as knowable because the essences we are giving them do not really apply.

[Anonymous No.16493121]

>>16492476
>fitness is pure ego
cope

[Anonymous No.16493123]

Are people ITT real hindus/buddist or LARPing westerners?

[Anonymous No.16493126]

>>16493108
>Neither absolutely exists for us as knowable
That’s the whole point. You cannot make the knower into the known, but this does not mean that the knower does not exist.

[Anonymous No.16493164]

>>16493123
>you're either an Easterner practicing hinduism/buddhism or a LARPer
Use your brain: if a religion is REALLY true, why would it matter where it originated? It would be true for all of mankind. It seems like this line of thinking assumes ALL religious belief is larping, but its okay for people in the cultural sphere to larp as their own religion.

[Anonymous No.16493167]

>>16493126
It doesn't make the knower an amnesiac appendage of god either. How is that any different from denying the knower? It is just a different formulation of that denial.

[Anonymous No.16493181]

>>16493123
My theory is that people who didn't start with the Greeks but the Germans become Dharmists instead of Platonists.

[Anonymous No.16493203]

>>16493167
>It doesn't make the knower an amnesiac appendage of god either.
It is God, not an appendage.
>How is that any different from denying the knower?
Because it asserts that the knower is the only thing that’s ultimately real.

[Anonymous No.16493263]

>>16493203
So really this is just Spinozism for Hindus. Which would explain why it is called crypto-Buddhist in an Indian context; you've killed god by turning him into the substance of everyone and everything.

[Anonymous No.16493355]

>>16493263
>So really this is just Spinozism for Hindus.
Cringe-tier misinterpretation. Spinoza thought the world was God; Advaita thinks the world is unreal and that God is the ultimate reality.
>you've killed god by turning him into the substance of everyone and everything.
Seethe.

I’ve been debating buddhists for hours, so I’m checking out. Last words:
FUCK buddha
FUCK plato
and FUCK jannies

[Anonymous No.16493365]

>>16493355
Oh, so it's just really nihilistic pajeet-Spinozism, then.

[Anonymous No.16493385]

>>16493056
>True, but how do we show them the light of their own consciousness?
I don’t know, it is an interesting question. It cannot be shown to them as an object for their eyes to see, it involves asking them to look inside themselves. We cannot do it for them. Vedanta has produced many tracts which explain the light of consciousness, and which show how it is the undeniable basis of all knowledge, and which explain how every attempt to deny it disproves itself through the resulting contradictions and the resulting complete disassociation from how we actually experience things; but people who have committed themselves to Buddhism are still capable of disagreeing with these arguments after reading them or seeing them repeated elsewhere
>Are they doomed?
Perhaps in this life, but there is always another chance in the next

[Anonymous No.16493413]

>>16493365
> nihilistic
No, because nihilism would be denying that anything exists. Advaita doesn’t do this since they say that God is absolutely real and eternal and that the universe is an appearance of God’s power

[Anonymous No.16493416]

>>16493355
Kek I'm not seething; god being dismembered to create the world is PIE as fuck. It also doesn't conflict with Buddhism since we are continously reborn from that god-world, which itself would have been dependently originated in an infinite cycle of god-deaths. We are not what we are born of, but together belong to the same set of voidness, the gods, men, and so forth.

[Anonymous No.16493452]

>>16493413
Uh wait if the universe is just an appearance of god's power then we are back to just being amnesiac appendanges of god, not god itself.

[Anonymous No.16493477]

>>16493452
>then we are back to just being amnesiac appendanges of god, not god itself.
And why would that be? Unless you explain the reasoning behind this it’s a pointless thing to say.

[Anonymous No.16493546]

>>16493477
It was being said by one of the vedantaposters that the self/knowing subject is really Self/God. In other words, we as subjects are not aware of our god-ness. But if it is now alleged that the universe is merely the appearance of god's power, then we are somehow both produced (as an appearance) and unproduced (as being god). At this point you can be referred to MMK, and as the saying goes, refuted.

[Anonymous No.16493567]

>ctrl + f "ism"
>20 matches

[Anonymous No.16493583]

>>16493413
But you just denied that things exist. You just said that everything except God is an illusion, and that God doesn't make up everything. So, yes, you are a nihilist, you're denying that everything except one thing exists.

The Buddhists at least say that everything is real, it's just dependent on everything else. You're just flat out selling literal, actual nihilism.

[Anonymous No.16493612]

>>16493123
The latter, real Hindus and Buddhists for the most part do not care at all, or act friendly while going their own ways, or quickly dismiss the other.

[Anonymous No.16493644]

>>16493056
Have peace, if someone wants to be a buddhist, they probably deserve it.

[Anonymous No.16493656]

>>16493546
> then we are somehow both produced (as an appearance) and unproduced (as being god).
That’s incorrect, because “we”, i.e. the Self or the witnessing consciousness is not a part of the produced universe, this is basic stuff. Everything witnessed as an object of awareness is produced, the witnessing consciousness or subject is unproduced. Ergo there is no problem.

[Anonymous No.16493679]

>>16493416
>PIE as fuck
so false?

[Anonymous No.16493690]

>>16493612
>real Hindus and Buddhist are apathetic mongs about their religion! my western scholarship told me so! in the east they never actually cared about discussing truth and undoing ignorance that is a western concept!
>"cutting away of ignorance"? no such thing

[Anonymous No.16493711]

>>16493583
>But you just denied that things exist.
That was not me, but in any case denying the absolute/complete reality of the observable universe around us is not the same as denying that anything exists, because Brahman is not the observable universe, so to deny the observable universe is not to deny Brahman, so it is not denying that “anything” exists, because “anything” includes Brahman, hence it is not nihilsm
>You just said that everything except God is an illusion, and that God doesn't make up everything. So, yes, you are a nihilist,
see above
>you're denying that everything except one thing exists.
which is not the definition of nihilism, and anyways Advaita only denies that the produced universe is the absolute reality, not that it exists as a transient realm which we experience as empirically real

[Anonymous No.16493717]

>>16493690
>in the east they never actually cared about discussing truth
That is exactly correct. If they did, they would have established an orthodoxy like christians and muslims did.
Buddhism literally survives only because smart jews like Sam Harris can repackage vipassana as mindfulness meditation. If it wasn't for capitalism, buddhism would've disappeared already, and it will when the revolution wipes it away.

[Anonymous No.16493731]

>>16493679
No I mean in many proto-indo-euro cosmologies the world is created by destroying a god, which would roundabout provide support for the notion that the universe is god-as-substance. On the other hand also a bit misleading as an absolute truth rather than a conventional truth as reconciled with given culturally loaded cosmologies.

[Anonymous No.16493737]

>>16493731
>proto-indo-euro
Yeah, but that's not a justification for it's truth value. Also, it's not exclusively a PIE thing, semites believed this as well (there are semites who are not jewish).

[Anonymous No.16493738]

>>16493656
>That’s incorrect, because “we”, i.e. the Self or the witnessing consciousness is not a part of the produced universe
I'm curious. Is everyone the same fundamental substance being deluded at different moments, or are there separate substances?

>>16492660
>>16493690
please keep the meme face pics to a minimum guys

[Anonymous No.16493740]

So.. Basically Buddhists are people that took the non-Being of the One and reified this non-Being into all levels of thought while Hindus read Parmenides once and then never once advanced beyond him? Tell me again why you are wasting your time with these religions when the Platonists refuted and transcended them both

Friendly reminder that this is the official ranking.
>Platonism > Buddhism > Hinduism

[Anonymous No.16493746]

>>16493717
Here, go read some books on why you are wrong:
Jan Assmann - Moses the Egyptian
David L. McMahan - The Making of Buddhist Modernism

[Anonymous No.16493759]

>>16493737
Yes it's a highly colorful explanation of the inexpressible absolute

[Anonymous No.16493770]

>>16493746
I'm not wrong, and your pseud shit won't change reality.
Buddhism is a weak religion with a below replacement birthrate. It's going to be wiped away with capitalism, because it doesn't have a spiritual core.
Islam will finish Buddhism in Asia, and communism will finish it in the US, and that's a good thing.
Mark my words.

[Anonymous No.16493772]

What do you folks think of Taoism?

[Anonymous No.16493775]

>>16493740
>>Platonism
wait, so what's the one before Platonism?

[Anonymous No.16493776]

>>16493717
The establishment of false orthodoxy in religions like Christianity and Islam is still inferior to the undetermined orthodoxy of Buddhism.

[Anonymous No.16493779]

>>16493776
Yeah say that again after the muslims eliminate your shit religion :)

[Anonymous No.16493798]

>>16493656
Why would our consciousness be unproduced? Is there any reason to think otherwise except for scripture? Clearly I was not conscious before being corporeal with senses to let me cogito, and even if I accept rebirth doctrines, those past lives were differently conditioned than the present and so a different consciousness was present in the respective pasts

[Anonymous No.16493825]

>>16493770
Sorry /pol/, the Chinese are constantly building colossal Buddhist statues (and also taking over the world) so you haven't seen the last of Buddhism.

[Anonymous No.16493826]

>>16493740
>he never read past the Greeks, so he doesn’t know this list gets inverted

[Anonymous No.16493857]

>>16493825
>implying that China is buddhist
>implying that China won't become Christian
>implying that China's buddhism is not state approved propaganda
Your weak faith has left you weak and you will die. Destoying buddhism is literally saving humanity.

[Anonymous No.16493891]

>>16493857
Those numbers are based on the Japanese dying out and the explosive growth of African countries. Why would China become Christian? Communism supercedes Christianity as a slave revolt.

[Anonymous No.16493897]

>>16493770
>Buddhism is a weak religion with a below replacement birthrate
lel Buddhist usually have some of the highest fertility rates in the world. Seems to me you're only focusing on east Asia.

Look at which group has the highest fertility rates in Russia. hint: it is not the Muslims.

[Anonymous No.16493904]

>>16493740
>thinking Hindu doctrines are Parmenidean monism
Plato would be absolutely ashamed of the brainletism of his self-appointed representatives such as yourself

[Anonymous No.16493921]

>>16493711
So, in >>16493355, you said
>Advaita thinks the world is unreal and that God is the ultimate reality.

But then in >>16493413 you say
>nihilism would be denying that anything exists

And then here >>16493711 you say
>Brahman is not the observable universe, so to deny the observable universe is not to deny Brahman, so it is not denying that “anything” exists, because “anything” includes Brahman, hence it is not nihilsm

Do you, or do you not believe that yourself, the nearest dog, and the computer that you are typing on, are real or not? Because it seems like you're being incoherent and inconsistent; you're cribbing the Two-Truths (which Advaitins reject) from Buddhism to avoid having to say "no, cars do not exist, they're an illusion", but you're also trying to deny Spinoza's whole "God is the prime substance" stuff in order to do so.

[Anonymous No.16493927]

>>16493826
Alright guy but unfortunately for him he came too early for the phenomenologist retvrn to ancient tradition.

[Anonymous No.16493926]

>>16493897
>b-buddhists fuck a lot, I swear
Buddhist fertility rates might have been something positive back in rural and tribal times, but with industrialization and contraception they will fall behind abrahamic faiths. Also, being in contact with abrahamic faiths will lead to lots of conversions to abrahamic faiths, because they are better.
Buddhism has the lowest population out of the major religions of the world, and it will continue to diminish, due to conversion, better philosophy, and a better outlook on life.
Buddhism is only sustained because western xenophiles find it cool and convert to it to support their consumerism and new atheism while larping as spiritual, but it has no staying power.

[Anonymous No.16493942]

>>16493717
Buddhism has orthodoxies, plural, what the fuck are you talking about? There's like eight of them, dude. Have you never heard of the Pali Canon, the Tibetan Canon, the Chinese Canon, etc?

>>16493740
How could the Buddha have any interaction with Plato Plato was born after the Buddha? Wouldn't it then be Plato misunderstanding the Buddha?

[Anonymous No.16493944]

>>16493897
Some of that big buddhist fertility rate will soon be converted into islamic fertility rate.

[Anonymous No.16493948]

>>16493926
>eventually everyone will convert to this obscure hindu sect because industrialism
You do realize that dualistic schools are the most popular philosophical schools in India, right?

[Anonymous No.16493950]

>>16493942
Yes that's the fucking point. You have several orthodoxies, that is to say none.
The christian denominations basically quibble over minor details, bug agree on the fundamental issues, while buddhists still didn't decide if God exists or not.

[Anonymous No.16493956]

>>16493948
>hinduism
>abrahamic
what?

[Anonymous No.16493957]

>>16493926
>there aren't a lot of Buddhists so it isn't good
Come on now

[Anonymous No.16493965]

>>16493957
>there aren't a lot of Buddhists so it isn't good
This, but unironically.

[Anonymous No.16493973]

>>16493942
>How could the Buddha have any interaction with Plato Plato was born after the Buddha? Wouldn't it then be Plato misunderstanding the Buddha?
It is a ranking, not a chronology.

[Anonymous No.16493978]

>>16493950
Christians do not agree on fundamental issues beyond Jesus being the son of God. You are massively oversimplifying two thousand years of theology and history because in the 21st century most of the extant churches are too emaciated to do anything but ecumenicism and humanism and sing kumbaya.

[Anonymous No.16493993]

>>16493738
>I'm curious. Is everyone the same fundamental substance being deluded at different moments, or are there separate substances?
Your question is wrongly premised on multiple levels.

1) Brahman or the Self is immaterial consciousness and hence can never be a substance
2) Brahman or the Self isn’t actually deluded, the ignorance inheres only in the jiva. The multitudes of jivas are deluded, but not the one omnipresent consciousness illuminating all of them. The ignorant jiva is unaware of the Self illuminating it and unknowingly superimposes the status of being an embodied and suffering individualized being onto the one Self, but the Self is completely untouched and unaffected by that superimposition

[Anonymous No.16494016]

>>16493798
> Why would our consciousness be unproduced? Is there any reason to think otherwise except for scripture?

“The fact of consciousness is entirely different from everything else. So long as the assemblage of the physical or physiological conditions antecedent to the rise of any cognition, as for instance, the presence of illumination, sense-object contact, etc., is being prepared, there is no knowledge, and it is only at a particular moment that the cognition of an object arises. This cognition is in its nature so much different from each and all the elements constituting the so-called assemblage of conditions, that it cannot in any sense be regarded as the product of any collocation of conditions. Consciousness thus, not being a product of anything and not being further analysable into any constituents, cannot also be regarded as a momentary flashing. Uncaused and unproduced, it is eternal, infinite and unlimited. The main point in which consciousness differs from everything else is the fact of its self-revelation. There is no complexity in consciousness. It is extremely simple, and its only essence or characteristic is pure self-revelation.

The so-called momentary flashing of consciousness is not due to the fact that it is momentary, that it rises into being and is then destroyed the next moment, but to the fact that the objects that are revealed by it are reflected through it from time to time. But the consciousness is always steady and unchangeable in itself. The immediacy of this consciousness is proved by the fact that, though everything else is manifested by coming in touch with it, it itself is never expressed, indicated or manifested by inference or by any other process, but is always self-manifested and self-revealed. All objects become directly revealed to us as soon as they come in touch with it.“

[Anonymous No.16494061]

>>16494016
>consciousness is just too different from conditions so it is uncaused
Oh no, we can't have causation now? Are you sure you aren't just madhyamaka with extra steps?

[Anonymous No.16494062]

>>16494016
Absolute based. The heretical crypto-Hindus will attempt to deny this, but they will never be able to deny their own consciousness.

[Anonymous No.16494084]

>>16493921
Im not half the posts you assumed were mine, see pic related

> Do you, or do you not believe that yourself, the nearest dog, and the computer that you are typing on, are real or not?
My consciousness, which is me, is the absolute reality, everything else has only a transient, contingent and empirically-real existence, but the empirically real does not exist on the level of absolute reality.

> Because it seems like you're being incoherent and inconsistent;
It is not, unless you are misunderstanding something, maybe you can refer to this post for clarification

>>/lit/thread/S16452586#p16453821

>you're cribbing the Two-Truths (which Advaitins reject)
False, Advaita accepts the distinction between absolute and non-absolute reality or truth, and this doctrine originates in the pre-Buddhist Upanishads which contrast a higher, immortal and subtle Brahman with a lower gross and mortal form such as in Brihadaranyaka verse 2.3.1

[Anonymous No.16494094]

>>16493948
> You do realize that dualistic schools are the most popular philosophical schools in India, right?
Vishishtadvaita and the various Bhedebheda schools all would deny that they are dualistic, and they collectively vastly outnumber the followers of Dvaita

[Anonymous No.16494108]

>>16493978
>Christians do not agree on fundamental issues
Yes they do, stop acting like you know the first thing about christianity.
All christian denominations agree that God, exists, that Jesus died for our sins, and by his death we are saved, that we are saved by grace (with or without works). They all agree that God is an eternal, perfect, good, omnipotent and omniscient creator of the world, and we could go on and on.
Buddhists have nothing close to this.

Butthists basically call whatever they do buddhism and that's that.

[Anonymous No.16494116]

>>16492541
This. Buddhists are basically proof that moral busybody atheist liberals having pseudo-morality strictly for the sake of moralfagging actually religious people is a 2500 year old tradition.

[Anonymous No.16494133]

>>16494108
Right there's no big splits over trinities, papacies, faith vs acts, and the like, no butchering of opponents over these contentions ever, just consensus.

[Anonymous No.16494148]

>>16494116
Not quite, the people who let god be crucified and said the downtrodden will conquer the earth are more of that worldview.

[Anonymous No.16494154]

>>16494133
Still more consensus that what you have lel.

[Anonymous No.16494168]

>>16494154
Why do you need a consensus with untold millions and billions of people? Is such as consensus even possible on these sorts of questions? Only in a severely dumbed down way are any of your claims about these religions true.

[Anonymous No.16494170]

>>16494148
>no u
Go fuck yourself butthist lol

[Anonymous No.16494174]

>>16494168
>gets btfo about no thaving consensus
>"well akshually you don't even need consensus anyway"
Ah, Buddhism, the religion of the true beta.
Cope harder.

[Anonymous No.16494200]

>>16494174
What is your angle here, that real chads kiss the pope's ring? Buddhism is not a monotheistic religion where you have to conclusively wipe out all the alternatives in order to accept it.

[Anonymous No.16494225]

>>16494200
My "angle" (funny because I'm actually directly stating everything I think unlike you slippery fucks) is that your religion is a vague collection of vague teachings from a guy who died a long time ago and you teach stuff that he never proclaimed, ever.
Not only that, but you are just atheists with extra steps. You are not spiritual, you are pseuds. You are anti-nomian deconstructionist acting as if you have acquired a higher understanding, even though you basically are just nihilists, selling people disassociation as a panacea.

[Anonymous No.16494242]

>>16494225
This. Buddhism is basically gaslighting combined with denial sold as a cure for "suffering".
It's pseudo-psychology in the thin cloak of "enlightenment". Carrot and a stick, you never actually get anything out of it, you just keep giving up more and more of yourself, but your problems never actually get solved or even addressed, and why would they matter? You don't even exist, since you don't have a self.

[Anonymous No.16494262]

>>16494225
>My "angle" (funny because I'm actually directly stating everything I think unlike you slippery fucks)
I highly doubt you capture everything you think in written statements but go on
>your religion is a vague collection of vague teachings from a guy who died a long time ago
Every religion
> you teach stuff that he never proclaimed, ever.
Every religion
>blah blah atheism nihilism
There are gods in Buddhism but they are neither immortal nor creator. Nihilism is a panicked theistic mind reacting to non-theistic explanations of reality.

[Anonymous No.16494271]

>>16494262
>there are gods in Buddhism
That's a shitty excuse. Your religion has devas and asuras, which are more like spirits, not a God. A God is by definiton a single entity that is the ground of all reality.
Shitty wordgame shut down before it began.

[Anonymous No.16494276]

>>16494242
As with the other poster, you could say a lot of the same about any religion. Christianity for instance says your problems are solved when you die, if and only if you had the right church or did the right acts. Or both. Or neither? (Predestination) Oh well.

[Anonymous No.16494284]

>>16494271
A monotheistic God, sure. Which means you have to disregard everyone else's definitions throughout history. So yes in that sense, without trying to understand something on its own terms, it would be atheist despite also accepting that there are suprahuman beings that can influence life on earth and are worshipped.

[Anonymous No.16494290]

>>16494276
>Christianity for instance says your problems are solved when you die
Except Christianity literally calls you to fix your problems instead of ignoring them by indoctrinating yourself into the idea that nothing matters anyway, because you personally don't matter (thats what buddhism does)

[Anonymous No.16494292]

>>16494271
>A God is by definiton [my specific monotheistic definition of a god]
Pseud

[Anonymous No.16494310]

>>16494290
Buddhism absolutely has a code of ethics and teaches that your actions matter. You are the one saying you have no self and should just become a beatnik.

[Anonymous No.16494315]

>>16494284
Yes, retard God means the ONE God, something that even hindus managed to discover, which will eternally make them superior to you lmao.
Your gods are literally not gods, they are devas, asuras, helping spirits, not the ground of reality. You keep bringing this up as if your gods were even actual gods, but you use a western word to describe entities it doesn't even refer to. YOu guys are atheists because you don't believe in God. This is not an incorrect statement, and monotheism is not an abrahamic-only things, you fucking loser.

[Anonymous No.16494321]

>>16494292
>the word God can just mean whatever I want it to mean
Pseud

[Anonymous No.16494322]

>>16494315
I'm glad we worked out that Hindus are monotheists I guess that is why they get along so well with Muslims historically.

[Anonymous No.16494334]

>>16494062
why does he have a little head on his hair spitting water like its squartle?

[Anonymous No.16494341]

>>16494322
>monotheists all get along well
>what are the crusades
Retard spotted

[Anonymous No.16494346]

>>16494321
>Zeus isn't a god
>Guanyin isn't a god
>Quetzalcoatl isn't a god

[Anonymous No.16494348]

>>16494334
Because he is the fountain of the dharma

[Anonymous No.16494362]

>>16494315
Muslims, Hindus, Christians, Platonists or whoever does not signify the same God when they speak of the ONE God.

They have no discovered the same God. They have discovered mutually exclusive God(s).

Fuck you and fuck your perennialism.

[Anonymous No.16494365]

>>16494346
Yes they are not God, you are correct. Your lack of education is showing.

[Anonymous No.16494366]

>>16494341
So much for the one true God and his obvious definition I guess. But tell me more about the stupid Buddhists

[Anonymous No.16494374]

>>16494365
M8 if you seriously don't believe polytheists believe in multiple gods I don't know what to tell you.

[Anonymous No.16494380]

>>16494362
>They have not discovered the same God.
In philosophy, if two things have the same attributes, than those two things are the same thing.
If Christians, platonists and hindus all arrive at an eternal, perfect ground of all being, then that means they arrived at the same thing.
Now read a book you fucking pseud.

[Anonymous No.16494386]

>>16494366
>doesn't know what God means
Yes, you are a retarded buddhist lmao.
>>16494374
Polytheists don't believe in God

[Anonymous No.16494391]

>>16494380
If you and OP were gay, would that make you both the one true Gay?

[Anonymous No.16494396]

>>16494391
>God is a material object in the universe
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBPqksG9nbA

[Anonymous No.16494411]

>>16494396
How would we know the attributes of the immaterial? Revelation? I just have to trust you? Everything you hate about Buddhism and more is available in your posts.

[Anonymous No.16494413]

>>16494386
>Christcuck refuses to accept that the word "god" meant something before Christianity
Sad!

[Anonymous No.16494424]

Four Noble Truths (virtually all Buddhists agree on this):
1. Suffering exists.
2. There is a cause of suffering.
3. There is an end of suffering.
4. There is a path of practice that leads to the end of suffering.
how is this nihilism?

[Anonymous No.16494427]

>>16494424
It's not. Christians also believe this but swap out 4 for the New Testament

[Anonymous No.16494455]

>>16493950
Well then no orthodoxy can ever exist, as by your autistic definition orthodoxy is literally impossible. Great job, retard.

[Anonymous No.16494460]

>>16494427
You don't even have to swap anything, you just have to disagree with what "the path of practice" means.

[Anonymous No.16494466]

>>16494380
They only remotely share the same attributes only after they strip away all the religiously derived attributes of God found in the various religions. This clearly means that they have not "discovered the same God".

Believe if it or not but if I strip away all attributes from my car except the most universal principles that are shared by all cars, this does in fact not mean my car is the same as yours.

Perennialism is the ultimate sissification of religion and man.

[Anonymous No.16494468]

>>16494424
>1.suffering exists
>exists
does anything?

[Anonymous No.16494487]

>>16494468
Yes.

[Anonymous No.16494497]

>>16494468
In Buddhism at least, it's pretty clear that the Four Noble Truths are a conventionally-real statement, such that we can accurately say "suffering exists". I don't think any Christian would seriously disagree that suffering exists, either.

[Anonymous No.16494498]

>>16494427
>>16494460
1. Suffering exists.
2. There is a cause of suffering.
3. There is an end of suffering.
4. There was a path of practice that leads to the end of suffering if believed that the path was indeed tread by this one other guy.
Seems like an important distinction.

[Anonymous No.16494548]

>>16492275
>The Phenomenology of Citta, Gautama-Friedrich Lokavida
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-Fjk4Ch8KY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84wMOPzBGnE

>reminder anatta's appearance in the Nikayas is always, always as a qualifier/adjective: otherness, insubstantial, without ground
>reminder these Hinayana heresies were actively pushed for this particular nihlistic misunderstanding as a front in the nascent Boomer culture war in the Vietnam era
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFgKi027B94

[Anonymous No.16494558]

>>16492275
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbqTXx7m9j4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPZLSrfgimc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bgVaoFKgRLQ

[Anonymous No.16494567]

>>16492275
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0Xey55_OgU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7kNdX_wDWyY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGA51q4Ux60

[Anonymous No.16494569]

how do the metaphysics of Trika Shaivism fit into this conversation ?

[Anonymous No.16494595]

>>16494061
> Are you sure you aren't just madhyamaka with extra steps?
Yes, there are many differences between them, such as

Advaita has a coherent explanation of consciousness which aligns with how we experience it, Madhyamaka doesn’t and is rendered incoherent by its denial of the self.

Advaita understands that illusions and contingent existences cannot cause themselves, they do not arise without something acting as their substratum or impeller. Madhyamaka doesn’t understand this and gives the non-answer Homunculus argument of dependent-origination, which is refuted by Kalams cosmological argument, among others

Shankara’s works are extremely lucid and detailed, and Advaita is unified in their understanding of him, mostly differing on a few matters of semantics and minor details. Nagarjuna’s works are vague and all of Mahayana and Vajrayana disagree with eachother on what he actually meant. Almost every commentary written by Buddhists on the MMK says it means completely different thing

Advaita says that the subject cannot reflexively know itself as its own object, and rightfully says that because of this any argument which tries to show that sentience/consciousness is conditioned fails because of this. Madhyamaka admits that reflexive relationships are untenable, but then contradicts itself by attempting to reflexively analyze and break down consciousness into its constituents, despite Madhyamaka simultaneously holding that such reflexive relationships are impossible, i.e. Madhyamaka contains internal contradictions

[Anonymous No.16494607]

>>16494498
The distinction is important, but doesn't make one side nihilists and the other not-nihilists.

[Anonymous No.16494611]

>>16494225
kek, good post

[Anonymous No.16494665]

>>16494595
>Nagarjuna’s works are vague and all of Mahayana and Vajrayana disagree with eachother on what he actually meant. Almost every commentary written by Buddhists on the MMK says it means completely different thing
There are about a thousand years worth of commentaries on the MMK, which in its antinomical method of deconstructing all logical possibilities on a claim leaves people confused. The entire text is a pedagogical tool for teaching sunyata, not to give a thorough explanation of consciousness. Tibet went with a prasanghika or non-syllogistic madhyamaka while its final form in India was a svatantrika madhyamaka placing the vijnanavada as the conventionally true explanation of consciousness and reality while sunyata was absolute.
>Madhyamaka admits that reflexive relationships are untenable, but then contradicts itself by attempting to reflexively analyze and break down consciousness into its constituents, despite Madhyamaka simultaneously holding that such reflexive relationships are impossible, i.e. Madhyamaka contains internal contradictions
For the sake of argument. You must be familiar with that!

[Anonymous No.16494782]

>>16494665
> For the sake of argument
The argument is worthless if the supposed evidence in its favor is obtained via methods which have been declared to be untenable. The very impossibility of doing so revealing that the conclusions obtained via this method are fallacious.

[Anonymous No.16494959]

>>16494665
>>16492275
Isn’t Sunyata just a radical apophatic description of Nirvana, that is, only retarded nihilists take that literally as a Void, Nothingness?

[Anonymous No.16494983]

>>16494959
Nirvana is empty of Nirvana.

[Anonymous No.16495001]

>>16492734
Edited it to look better

[Anonymous No.16495022]

>>16495001
>using elegant yet simple sanskrit to enlighten the masses
Kek, the "masses" couldn't understand Sanskrit and even today Shankara's thought is the domain of philosopher NEETs while Buddhism is a living religion practiced by hundreds of millions.

[Anonymous No.16495026]

>>16494983
Yes, it is radical apophaticism.

[Anonymous No.16495056]

>>16495026
But not apophaticism toward something. For Nirvana surely can't be said to have any sort of Being.

[Anonymous No.16495078]

>>16495056
Read Dionysius’s Mystical Theology.

[Anonymous No.16495168]

>>16492581
Not with that attitude

[Anonymous No.16495691]

Why should it be one versus the other. Dharma doors are many, we should vow to let others find their own path to liberation, not needlessly create conflict.

[Anonymous No.16495709]

Here are some websites that may provide useful for different vehicles.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/
This is a website that contains suttas from the Pali Canon, or the Theravadan lineages key texts. It also has study guides and dharma talks from the great sages of the Thai Forest tradition.

http://www.ahandfulofleaves.org/library.html
This is a Buddhist library with free pdf's many of which are very useful for understanding the history and philosophy of Buddhism. Has Theravadan and Mahayana texts.

http://seeingthroughthenet.net/books/
This has Theravadan books and texts that are useful for understanding the lineage.

https://www.dhammatalks.org/
This has many books and dharma talks in the Thai Forest tradition of Ajahn Chah and Bhikku Thanissaro. Great for an introduction to Theravadan thought. Has free physical books for shipping.

[Anonymous No.16495714]

Now, on to Mahayana.
First we have
https://www.amitabha-gallery.org/
A site run by the Venerable Wuling, a Pure Land bhikkuni taught by Venerable Master Chin Kung. Is Chinese Pureland, and focuses on both Other and Self Power.
Has free books and dharma talks on the Pure Land school, as well as introductory books on Buddhism.

https://www.chanpureland.org/
Next, we have a sangha in the Chinese dual cultivation of Chan and Pureland teachings, it's current teacher is Master Yuanghua. Has dharma talks available.

https://zenstudiespodcast.com/
A podcast by Domyo Burke of the Soto Zen lineage. A good introduction to Soto Zen and basic Buddhist thought. Also has an online sangha you can join if you email her.

https://terebess.hu/zen/zen.html
Free Zen and Chan texts and commentaries!

http://cttbusa.org/fas1/fas_contents.asp
This is a sangha first founded by Venerable Master Hsuan Hua of the Pure Land and Chan lineage. Has free dharma talks, books, sutra translations, and commentaries on sutras by Master Hua, as well as physical books for purchase.

https://www.fgsitc.org/
Another Pure Land and Chan sangha, with free physical books (if you pay shipping), and free pdfs as well.

https://www.amitabhalibrary.org/index.htm
Free physical texts on Chan and Pure Land teachings, as well as altar screens which usually run about 25 to 35 dollars plus shipping.

http://www.amtb-usa.org/english_inception.html
Free physical books on the Pure Land and Chan school shipped to you!

[Anonymous No.16495718]

Now to Tibetan Mahayana,

https://studybuddhism.com/
This has an introduction to Tibetan Buddhism that is worthwhile to look into.

https://www.lamayeshe.com/
This has free physical books for distribution in the Gelug tradition, as well as books for purchase.

https://www.dawnmountain.org/
This is a sangha that teaches all lineages of Tibetan Mahayana.

Chokyi Nyima Rinpoche
https://dharmasun.org/

Tsoknyi Rinpoche
https://tsoknyirinpoche.org/

Mingyur Rinpoche
https://tergar.org/

14th Dalai Lama
https://www.dalailama.com/

Khenpo Tsewang Dongyal Rinpoche
https://www.padmasambhava.org

Lama Lena
https://lamalenateachings.com/

Alan Wallace
http://www.alanwallace.org/

Tenzin Wangyal Rinpoche
https://ligmincha.org/

James Low
https://www.simplybeing.co.uk/

Jetsunma Tenzin Palmo
http://tenzinpalmo.com/

Dzigar Kongtrul Rinpoche
https://www.mangalashribhuti.org/

Dzongsar Khyentse Rinpoche
https://khyentsefoundation.org/

Khenpo Tsultrim Gyamtso Rinpoche
http://www.ktgrinpoche.org/

Lama Yeshe & Foundation for the Preservation of the Mahayana Tradition
https://fpmt.org/

Thubten Chodron
http://thubtenchodron.org/

Thrangu Rinpoche
http://www.rinpoche.com/

Dzogchen Ponlop Rinpoche
http://www.dpr.info/

17th Karmapa
https://kagyuoffice.org/

Samye Ling monastery
https://www.samyeling.org/

Sakya Trizin
http://hhsakyatrizin.net/

Orgyen Tobgyal Rinpoche
http://all-otr.org/

[Anonymous No.16495725]

That is all. Finally we have:
http://www.buddhanet.net/
This has many pdfs and dharma talks on all three Vehicles.

https://dharmaseed.org/
Has many dharma talks on Theravadan and Mahayana traditions, as well as few on Tibetan Mahayana.

[Anonymous No.16495762]

>>16495709
You forgot the most important source on Theravada
>https://politicallyincorrectdharma.blogspot.com/

[Anonymous No.16495782]

>>16495691
Wrong

[Anonymous No.16495790]

>>16495762
He sounds like a right wing nationalistic monk that is way too involved in politics for his own good. I would not trust his advice.

[Anonymous No.16495794]

>>16495762
Is that you in the picture? Are you promoting your own website on /lit/?

[Anonymous No.16495798]

>>16495782
Conflict is not of the Eightfold Path. The only right conflict is that waged against the mind.

[Anonymous No.16495814]

>>16495790
Shut the fuck up, puthujjana.
>>16495794
Nah just grabbed it from his website and that was the automatically what the picture was called when downloaded.

[Anonymous No.16495822]

>>16495798
Conflict against ignorance and in favor of wisdom is very much part of the path.

[Anonymous No.16495843]

>>16495814
Harsh speech is not of the path either. May you be free from suffering. May you be at peace.
>>16495822
I respectfully disagree. It serves no purpose but to put hatred in our hearts.

[Anonymous No.16495934]

>>16495843
>this guy is gonna make an attempt at enlightenment without discrimination

[Anonymous No.16495946]

>>16495762
>https://politicallyincorrectdharma.blogspot.com/

MY POLITICAL HEROES
(in historical order)

Themistocles
Ashoka
Julian the Apostate
Frederick II (not the Prussian king, the Sicilian one and Holy Roman Emperor)
John Adams
Fyodor Dostoyevsky
Theodore Roosevelt
Julius Evola (maybe)
Winston Churchill (though now there are some saying he was evil)
Enoch Powell
George Carlin
Charles Murray
Victor D. Hanson
Rand Paul
Nigel Farage (maybe?)
Styxhexenhammer666
Carl Benjamin


Honorable Mention
Donald Trump(!)

[Anonymous No.16495950]

>>16495946
>Styxhexenhammer666
>Carl Benjamin
Fucking lol

[Anonymous No.16495967]

>>16495946
>>16495950
Yeah he is boomercon. Not a fascist.

[Anonymous No.16495968]

>>16495798

[Anonymous No.16496388]

>>16494084
The two truths doctrine was really a heuristic device used by Abhidharmikas to interpret the Buddha's words in accordance with the warning given by the Buddha in Neyyatha Sutta (AN I.60) in which a meaning within a discourse was to either be clear and not inferred, or a meaning within a discourse was to be inferred and not be presented as clear. The solution to this was to separate the ultimate meaning (paramartha-satya) of a discourse with its conventional meaning (samvrti-satya), this way the Neyyatha Sutta would be upheld.

>The question of which discourses of the Buddha are of explicit meaning (nitattha) and which require interpretation (neyyattha) became one of the most intensely debated issues in Buddhist hermeneutics. Starting with the early Indian Buddhist schools, the debate continued in such later Mahayana sutras as the Aksayamatinirdesa and the Samdhinirmocana. The controversy continued even beyond India, in Sri Lanka, China, and Tibet. The Pali commentaries decided this issue on the basis of the Abhidhamma distinction between ultimate realities and conventional realities. Manorathapurani (II.118) states: "Those suttas that speak of one; person (puggala), two persons, etc., require interpretation, for their meaning has to be interpreted in the light of the fact that in the ultimate sense a person does not exist (paramatthato pana puggalo nama natthi) . One who misconceives the suttas that speak about person, holding that the person exists in the ultimate sense, explains a discourse whose meaning requires interpretation as one whose meaning is explicit. A sutta whose meaning is explicit is one that explains impermanence, suffering, and non-self; for in this case the meaning is simply impermanence, suffering, and non-self. One who says, 'This discourse requires interpretation/ and interprets it in such a way as to affirm that 'there is the permanent, there is the pleasurable, there is a self/ explains a sutta of explicit meaning as one requiring interpretation." The first criticism here is probably directed against the Puggalavadins, who held the person to be. ultimately existent; The latter might have been directed against an early form, of the tathagatagdrbha theory, which (in the Mahayana Parinirvana Sutra) affirmed a permanent, blissful, pure self. (B. Boddhi, 2000)

You are right though, the Hindus were not the bearers of this thought because the Upanishads themselves contradict the 2 truths doctrine
>What you call truth is one. There cannot be two truths, three truths, four truths, five truths, etc. There is only one truth – satyameva jayate. II.12, 5th Brahmana - Br Up

[Anonymous No.16496412]

>>16494548
>>16494558
>>16494567
>egomaniac LARPer who describes himself as a cringey 'hardcore right-wing traditionalist'
>bald fraud with fake credentials (not an actual pali translator)
>creates fake accounts to vandal buddhist books on amazon
>samefags buddhist blogposts under multiple monikers with autistic vitriol
>notorious wiki editor who got banned multiple times and had articles semi-guarded
>none of his ideas are new, just rehashed from Coomaraswamy
>all his arguments boil down to mistranslations and strawmans
>bonus: failed photographer who has become a laughing stock on /p/ for gearfagging and shilling as multiple people
>bonus: he once tried to samefag on tumblr promoting his youtube channel just as he is in this thread (pic related)

[Anonymous No.16496651]

>>16496412
>takes absolutely no prisoners in his mission to spread authentic right-wing aryan traditionalist dhamma
>have a lens collection of every conceivable version ever produced in untold number laying around his house... for some unknowable reason
>is supposedly the only translator of the;now dead, ancient language of Pali in the world
Absolutely based.

[Anonymous No.16496656]

>>16496651
>is also a pedo apologiser
hahah based!

[Anonymous No.16496675]

>here's your advaitin bro

[Anonymous No.16496692]

>>16496675
are all tradchuds bloated potatoes irl? is that why they keep shooping themselves into gigachads, as a coping mechanism?

[Anonymous No.16496818]

hey guenonfag is vedanta is so great why did guenon convert to islam and advised others to do the same

[Anonymous No.16496892]

>>16496651
>>16496656
>>16496675
all of the flaws in ken can be attributed to the fact that he still tries to pretend that Buddhism is valuable in any way


TO THE NPCDDHIST WHO WAS ARGUEING IN THE LAST THREAD, you misunderstood my point and then fled, but just to be sure I wanted to make sure I explain to you why you are wrong

>>16492185
>>oh but we can take it apart to make an infinite regress to keep digging down and find the ACTUAL consciousness
>Do you actually read what you type, or are you just in an Aboriginal Dream Time fugue state, where you wake up at various points of the day with people telling you that you did various things that you have no knowledge of?
I mistakenly assumed that from the previous discussion you were intelligent enough to understand that at that point in the conversation that what you thought was the conditioned and changing awareness was not actually awareness itself but a changing insentient phenomena observed by awareness. I had already explained to you that when you tried to say "well sense of self can be changed when you meditate or trip on psychedelics, this proves that the self is not unchanging", that this was totally wrong and shows that you don't yet understand the distinction between consciousness and that which it observes. Change and movement doesn't apprehend itself as such, all change and movement can only be discerned in consciousness, the changing "sense of self" which you said could be changed was not the Self or Atman itself, by virtue of it being observed in consciousness.

In all the various examples of supposed changes observed in consciousness, if you didn't observe those changes themselves with your consciousness as their witness, then you wouldn't have been able to remember them and bring it up as an example in your argument. If awareness observes anything includes changes than as the subject it cannot by default be that which it observes including all change. Nagarjuna is forced to concede this by his claimed refutation of reflexive relationships as impossible in the MMK, and any attempt to claim otherwise means that Madhyamaka is completely retarded and contradicts itself at every turn.

[Anonymous No.16496899]

>>16496892
If you had actually been reading my arguments, thinking about their meaning, and then hermeneutically placing the rest of all my statements in relation to those arguments, than everything above should have already been completely apparent to you. So then when you saw that that when I wrote here >>16488896 "you are confusing normal egoistic awareness with the more subtle and basic primordial awareness which permeates every moment", that I was not actually referring to two separate awarenesses, (as one as a changing thing observed by awareness, could not in fact, be awareness). Admittedly it was bad phrasing to use the word awareness twice, but again if you had even been paying attention I had already explained multiple times in the very same post in which that sentence appeared that anything that changes qua being something which is observed is not actually awareness.

So the two alternatives, are that you either completely failed to comprehend the point of what I was saying and how it applied to your own consciousness (for if you hadn't then you would have known I didn't literally mean two different awarenesses), or you deliberately decided to nitpick at my definitions in bad faith knowing that what you were implying was not what I actually meant. I don't understand how someone could still earnestly deny that they have an awareness which is separate from one's thoughts and sensory perceptions, especially after all the contradictions that this results in were explained in the last thread. I am starting to take the NPC meme more seriously.

[Anonymous No.16496925]

>>16493123
Reminder that a westerner can call themselves a Buddhist without any hint of larp or memery since Buddhism is not caste based.
Reminder that if you aren’t born in the Indian caste system calling yourself a Hindu is pure larp and you will never be a real Hindu. You can follow Advaita Vedanta or study Kashmir Shaivism but to refer to yourself as a Hindu when your white or black or any non Indian ethnicity is mega mega cringe.

[Anonymous No.16496943]

>>16496925
4 million Balinese are just LARPing

[Anonymous No.16497020]

>>16496925
Lets be honest though, westerners can't be Buddhist either. Buddhism without the local pagan synthesis is basically sterilized Sam Harris Buddhism.

I've yet to find any Buddhist monks or lay communities that spend their time meditating, chanting incantations to Apollo, and carving intricate auspicious idols of Jupiter.

[Anonymous No.16497039]

>>16496925
>Reminder that a westerner can call themselves a Buddhist without any hint of larp or memery
Yes, but they will always be humiliated and mocked for joining a cringe gay proselyting egalitarian deconstructionist slave-morality-based morass of sophistry and poor philosophy which was collectively refuted by Shankara

>Reminder that if you aren’t born in the Indian caste system calling yourself a Hindu is pure larp and you will never be a real Hindu.
This is not true, stop lying. There are various Hindu sects that have and still do offer genuine initiation to westerners. Multiple of the contemporary Shaivite movements such as the Veershaivas and the Nath orders do not have caste as a prerequisite for initiation and have given it to white westerners before. A white man born in the USA with the current name of 'Bodhinatha Veylanswami' is at present the head of a multi-hundred year old old Shaivite order with many thousands of followers back in India.

[Anonymous No.16497194]

>>16497020
I disagree with this. One can have Buddhism without Bon Shaman or Japanese Shinto influence.

>>16497039
>that’s not true...various sects offer initiation

These are not true initiations. Only those twice born castes can be initiated, shudras and castless cannot. This is a fundamental aspect of the religion; these initiations are simply money grabs by Indians who sell gullible westerners a fantasy of joining a religion they never will be able to. A westerner can become a Buddhist if they are looking for a dharmic philosophy that is open to them.

[Anonymous No.16497240]

>>16497194
>This is a fundamental aspect of the religion;
No it's not, because Tantric Hinduism based on the Agamas is a valid branch of Hinduism and they initiate foreigners openly. And there are also schools rooted in and drawing from both the Tantric and Vedic/Vedantic traditions which do the same. Even the Gaudiya Vaishnavas have initiated many foreigners.

The head of a temple in Varanasi belonging to the non-dualist Shaivitie sect Veerashaivism, which offers traditional initiations to householders both Indian and foreigners, summarizes the above point in an interview

http://wildyogi.info/en/issue/gauri-interview-shri-chandrashekhar-mahaswamiji-spiritual-teacher-shivaite-tradition

>Some people say, that a foreigner can not truly become a Hinduist, because he does not have the gotra (ancestral lineage); that it is possible to become a hindu only if you were born in an Indian family. However, you give traditional initiation to the foreigners – what is your opinion about this (can a Western man be considered to be Hindu the way the Indian one is considered)? Does a Western receive the same initiation in virashivaism as does an Indian?

>Yes, foreigner receive just the same initiation as Indians do. There are two kinds of traditions in Hinduism – those based on Vedas and those based on Agamas. Vedas and Agamas are equally acknowledged as the sources of sacred knowledge. Both of them originated from God: Vedas are called to be the breathing of God, and Agamas – are his words. Shaiva Agamas are the dialogs of Shiva and Parvati. The system described in Vedas is based on social division (based on varnas: brahmana, kshatriya, vaysha, and shudra). Only men who are representatives of the three varnas (brahmana, kshatriya, and vaysha) qualify for initiation. In Agamas another kind of initiation is described – diksha. This initiation can be received by anyone regardless of gender and social position. In this case, mind condition of a person is important, his aspiration for self-actualization. The teacher watches the student, assesses his level of readiness, and according to this gives him diksha. In Agamas it is said: “Having appraised the level of God energy presence in a person (the devotion of a person) initiation should be given to him.” (“Shaktipatam samalokya dikshaya yojaed amum.”) In this way, in virashivaism and other traditions, based on Agamas, origin and citizenship of a person have no importance.

[Anonymous No.16497259]

>>16495691
>Dharma doors are many,
huh no

[Anonymous No.16497262]

>>16495762
>>You forgot the most important source on Theravada
>>https://politicallyincorrectdharma.blogspot.com/
Evola cucks are a msitake

[Anonymous No.16497274]

>>16492541>>16492964
>>16494116

>and thus can’t comprehend the difference between mind and consciousness.

Mental midgets like hindus do not even understand that consciousness is conditioned.

[Anonymous No.16497346]

>>16497274
Wrong, consciousness is unconditioned. You cannot provide any reliable evidence that consciousness or sentience is conditioned, because those evidences, such as seeming changes in thoughts, moods, etc as things which are observed by the same consciousness which they are supposed to be proving the changeable nature of, do not actually provide any information about that observing consciousness. Sentience or consciousness is not the same thing as the exterior sensory and internal mental phenomena which it apprehends. Every single argument for consciousness being conditioned automatically fails without exception because they all actually rely on the example of changes and conditioning in non-conscious things which are observed by consciousness, not changes in consciousness itself.

>And with that, the Buddhist position on consciousness is refuted

QED

[Anonymous No.16497442]

>>16496818
>why did guenon convert to islam and advised others to do the same
He was initiated into Sufism by Ivan Agueli over a decade before he formally converted to Islam, he was initiated into a Taoist order as well around the same time as his Sufi initiation as well. It made sense to join formally something he already had been doing the practices of for a long time. He had already extensively read and studied Hindu writings in Sanskrit, so going all the way to India to be initiated would in a way just a big effort to add another initiation to his list, and for something he already knew extremely well anyway and which he regarded as agreeing with Sufism, perhaps he thought it unnecessary. He most likely believed that there were reasons for him coming into contact with certain initiatory opportunities first and not others.

It is not true that he exclusively recommended that people join Islam though. In a series of letters with Evola, Guenon recommends to Evola that if Evola wanted to go to India and be initiated that he would be best off seeking out some traditional Shaivite sects.

[Anonymous No.16497486]

>>16496818
he was too much of a bitch to commit to his ideas, he'd rather have the materialistic comfort of downtown Cairo

[Jesus No.16498296]

R: 187 / I: 36
so much for internal silence and losing ego, losing desire to prove yourself right, losing desire.

[Anonymous No.16498703]

>>16497486
epic bait

[Anonymous No.16498998]

>>16492734
>>16495001
the pic says learnt from several gurus but Shankara only had one guru, Govinda Bhagavatpada is the only one he mentions in his works