/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.14191787]

How does the advaitan conception of the True Self as a transcendent pure consciousness fit with the notion of 'realization' of its nature? The realization could only belong to the transient nature of thoughts, could it not? If the nature of the Self is only to 'perceive', then it could never realize itself and attain enlightenment, could it?

In light of this, doesn't enlightenment and its experience belongs to a transient self? And as a result, isn't the idea of a transcendent self then unnecessary? Buddhism seems to BTFO advaitafags on all levels, but correct me if I'm wrong.

[Anonymous No.14191793]

>>14191787
Not to mention, how does avidya "distract" the transcendent self? There is an argument to be had for the fact that these musings are avidya and maya themselves and thus belong not to the Self, but I'm still curious to hear your thoughts on this.

[Anonymous No.14191804]

>>14191787
Nirvana is also “realized” because realization isn’t limited to the egoic mind and everyday intellect, since Nirvana is a transcendental realization
so insofar as Advaita posits a transcendental realization that isn’t dependent on concepts or thoughts, there is no real discrepancy there with the Buddhists.
The disagreements tend to arise when applying intellectual concepts like “self,” “first cause” or “creative principle” to this transcendental realization. Buddhism is hesitant to call it anything like that while Advaita seemingly isn’t

[Anonymous No.14191818]

>>14191804
But there's no explanation for a transcendent realization. Nirvana can be 'realized' insofar as it's a realization of the emptiness (lack of) intrinsic reality in the self. The buddhist conception of the self as empty (or as a transient multitude, but either way a lack of a centralized 'soul' / essence). This whilst the advaitan conception of the eternal Self with its positive descriptors seems to be in a quarrel with the idea of a realization.

[Anonymous No.14191827]

>>14191818
Sorry, skipped out on a bit there. It's late.
>The buddhist conception of the self as empty
>...is consistent with its conception of moksha/nirvana

[Anonymous No.14191854]

>>14191818
>emptiness (lack of) intrinsic reality in the self
important to note that in Buddhism, all things are empty and not just the self. All concepts, notions, perceptions, ideas, the aggregates, anything designatable whatsoever: they’re all empty.

[Anonymous No.14192219]

>>14191854
Obviously, and that's what undermines the idea of realization to begin with? At least I fail to view it otherwise.

[Anonymous No.14192263]

>>14191787
All of these questions are answered in Shankara's works, it's tiresome to see Buddhists who have never read a page of him try to dissect Advaita from their outsiders perspective based on their wikipedia- and 4chan-gathered knowledge

[Anonymous No.14192311]

Why does no one on /lit/ ever talk about Pyrrhonism? Isn't that essentially western Buddhism? They both share the Three Marks of Existence and the goal is to have no views which leads to tranquility and the end of suffering.

Or have I been had by the scholars trying to equate the two?

[Anonymous No.14192359]

>>14191787
Freedom comes from identifying as the original consciousness rather than the reflected consciousness.

[Anonymous No.14192405]

>>14191787
Your entire paradigm is hopelessly outdated beyond repair. No about of "hotfixes" are possible, and are just copes to try to sedate cognitive dissonance. In the end, all traditionalisms are the fiercest forms of slavery.

Advance into the 21st century.

[Anonymous No.14192462]

Reading up on advaita just seems like a cowards way out of accepting any monism like Lebiniz’ or Schelling while adding the edginess of its esoterism

[Anonymous No.14192466]

>>14192405
spiritual experience and realization is something that is real, and happens reliably according to spiritual practices.
If you want to remain a materialist, avoid these sorts of threads

[Anonymous No.14192512]

>>14192311
>Why does no one on /lit/ ever talk about Pyrrhonism?
Brainletism, objective "values", "moral", gennonfaggotry, stoicismiswesterbuddhism and so on.
>Or have I been had by the scholars trying to equate the two?

https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:347ed882-f7ac-4098-908f-5bb391462a6c/download_file?file_format=pdf&safe_filename=THESIS01&type_of_work=Thesis

There are also other works.

[Anonymous No.14192647]

>>14192219
emptiness doesn’t mean “doesn’t exist,” it means “cannot be known in and of itself without dependency on/relation to other things.”
Nagarjuna defines Nirvana as the “profound absence of objectification”
So Nirvana is when the inherent perceptual assumption that any objects whatsoever in experience are objectively real beyond the appearance itself - is ended. Regardless of what you think about it conceptually (agree or disagree), your mind automatically perceives objects of your experience as real and part of some separate objective existence apart from you, because it grasps and identifies unknowingly at the mental aggregates, creating the distinction in the first place of me/mine/self which contrasts with the non-mental/internal aggregates as apart-from-me/other/world/not-me. Nirvana is the cessation of this confused grasping, and the disappearance of this distinction “me vs other” “self vs world” “this vs that” which causes perception of objectivity and of self-nature in things. Nirvana isn’t really an “attainment” because it’s not really a normal object of cognition or something that you build up and grab, it is characterized by absence of grasping, absence of objectification. “Nirvana” is called empty because it too is a concept and not some object that is grasped by “you,” but it is the absence of grasping.
It is called a realization because it is the realization that any objectivity assumed in any appearance whatsoever is merely imputed by the mind, and has always been merely and arbitrarily imputed by the mind, nothing more.

[Anonymous No.14192777]

>>14192462
Why do you think that? What is cowardly about it?

[Anonymous No.14192799]

>>14191787
>How does the advaitan conception of the True Self as a transcendent pure consciousness fit with the notion of 'realization' of its nature? The realization could only belong to the transient nature of thoughts, could it not?
No, the Self (atman) is the eternal, unchanging witness. Nothing actually changes upon "realization." There is a story to illustrate this: A man takes his donkey to the river to drink, but forgot his rope to tie it up. He mimes tying up the donkey, which stays in place as if it were. When he sets off again, he mimes untying the rope and the donkey moves. Neither the restraint nor the release ever really existed, in a similar way the illusion of "realization" can be used within the realm of maya to dispel the illusion of being trapped in maya.

>>14191793
Maya is fundamentally not real, it is an illusion. To ask where this illusion comes from is not a valid question, as causation and origin only exist within maya and are illusory themselves.

[Anonymous No.14192850]

>>14192777
The way i see it, plenty of monist systems exist but the clinging to Advaita and other Eastern philosophies/religions over them just seems like an attempt to be edgy by subverting western norms. But I don’t claim to have an expansive knowledge of it, just the essentials of the doctrine.

In comparison to Christianity there isn’t any moral requirements and you have the freedom to worship a personal God, but is that really different from just being a monist in the western sense? Seems as if it’s added a sprinkle of mysticism/enlightenment and that attracts people who don’t like the rigors of moral and ethical laws in other religions.

[Anonymous No.14192865]

>>14192850
There are absolutely moral requirements. Shankara says moral living is a prerequisite for pursuing liberation.

[Anonymous No.14192866]

>>14192512
Based. Thanks for the share, looks interesting. I'll read it once i'm done with "Greek Buddha" and "Buddhist Literature of Ancient Gandhara" which i'm currently reading.

[Anonymous No.14193054]

>>14192865
Not saying they aren’t, but moral living in Advaita is not the same as moral living in Christianity. Advaita doesn’t concern itself with damning me to hell if I touch my peepee without telling the priest or didn’t honor the sacredness of marriage.

[Anonymous No.14193112]

>>14192311
>the goal is to have no views
this is not true. the goal is to have RIGHT view, not to have no views at all
you are ignorant

[Anonymous No.14193160]

>>14193112
Mundane right view is essential to the eightfold path yes, but, being a raft, this and the whole teaching becomes irrelevant after liberation. In liberation, all views are wrong views. But it is true that right view is necessary for the path to awakening, yes.

[Anonymous No.14193175]

>>14193054
they dont damn you to hell but they ''damn'' you into the never-ending samsara; if you think that you don't have to recitfy yourself in order to understand and ''realize things'', or that coming closer to That you still engage on the same immoral, hedonistic activities, you haven't grasped what That is.

[Anonymous No.14193178]

>>14192865
There is a difference between both Buddhist/Advaita and Christian though. Buddhist/Advaita morals are means to an end, and the reason why you should follow them is because every time you do not your spiritual progress is delayed and hindered. Buddhist/Advaita morality is internal and the deed is done against yourself.

Christian moral law is the law of a Divine sovereign and breaking it is the same as breaking the law of a secular king. He's the judge and executioner. Grace and forgiveness are the only ways out.

[Anonymous No.14193198]

>>14193178
You articulated my point much better. Christianity places a LOT of emphasis on correct moral living, but it’s attributed to God’s law and his creation not that you’re delaying your enlightenment.

[Anonymous No.14193295]

>>14193160
some of what you say is true, yes. the path is indeed not the goal, but only the means of achieving it, but that is a false dichotomy, you don't abandon the path once you reach the goal, you become the path (the buddha, after reaching his goal never abandoned the moral aspects of the path, as an example of what I mean)
transcendent right view also exists
liberation is not defined as the state of having no views whatsoever
buddha did have views, and those views are his dispensation (the Dhamma)
even in liberation, the enlightened person would not say he or she has no views at all, but that his or her view is the Dhamma
buddhism is a self-sealing argument, that's why it's not a philosophy but a religion
don't be cheated by western buddhist proselytism

[Anonymous No.14193331]

>>14193160
>>14193295
to expand a little more, as i explained in the previous post, this statement
>In liberation, all views are wrong views
is plainly wrong
in liberation, the only view that can exist is the Dhamma, all other views are wrong and would mean you are not actually enlightened
this doesnt mean ALL views are wrong views, it only means all views that are not the Dhamma are wrong views, but that in itself is a view, called transcendent right view

[Anonymous No.14193339]

>>14193295
well yea I agree the Buddha was incapable of immorality due to his awakening. Greed, hatred and delusion were made incapable of ever arising again
I don’t think that contradicts what I said

[Anonymous No.14193352]

>>14193331
>transcendent right view
Yea I should have clarified that by “views” I meant in the mundane sense, that all mundane views are wrong views

[Anonymous No.14193363]

>>14193352
that still is not something any enlightened person would say
not all mundane views are wrong views, that would mean there is no possible path to reach enlightenment and that the whole canon texts that deal with right view (attributed to the buddha himself) are wrong, and that my friend, is haram to buddhists

[Anonymous No.14193368]

>>14193352
>>14193363
buddhism does not deal with absolutes but with relatives
there is always an exception and generalizations are not well recieved

[Anonymous No.14193424]

>>14193363
what does the simile of the raft sutta mean to you?

[Anonymous No.14193460]

>>14191787
This is why Qualified Non-Dualism was articulated.

(Vishishtadvaita)

[Anonymous No.14193472]

>>14191787

logically, there is no realization or enlightenment if you only identify with brahman. however as humans living in the world, there is obviously subjective understanding of objective truth. two people will never have the exact same understanding of an idea, yet communication is possible

[Anonymous No.14193497]

>>14193112
All Dharmas are empty. Therefore Right-View is no more right than wrong, both right and wrong, nor neither right and wrong. Right-View has no Self-essence. Right and Wrong implies absolutism.

Buddha taught the Dharma because it leads to liberation, not because it is imbued with Rightness. Even emptiness is empty.

[Anonymous No.14193589]

>>14193424
why do you ask this? i have already stated what it means >>14193295
>you don't abandon the path once you reach the goal, you become the path
if i may be so arrogant as to say i can interpret it by myself i would say it means that you have to make as many rafts as possible to save not only yourself, taking the example of the buddha himself and returning to the world as a teacher
another of my interpretations is that the raft, the island and the ocean itself all are illusions of the unenlightened mind, so in the end "see things as they really are" is the only thing you can actually do
i reserve the interpretation of the suttas to the abhidhamma, i am no bikkhu, and that sutta is specifically directed towards bikkhus

>>14193497
>All Dharmas are empty
this is only according to the madhyamikas, and to this day is a point of schism in the the different buddhist traditions and schools
this dogma does not apply to all of the buddhist world, it is but a current of thought in a much larger heritage

[Anonymous No.14193637]

>>14193589
This of course reflects the Radical Pluralism of the original teachings of Gotama

[Anonymous No.14193934]

>>14193368
>quoting Star Wars
gb2 reddit

[Anonymous No.14193952]

>>14192799
>To ask where this illusion comes from is not a valid question
Mayavadins would like that wouldn’t they?

[Anonymous No.14193967]

Been reading some stuff about early Buddhism and a lot of early Buddhists lived alone in the forest without ever(or rarely) begging for food. They lived off the land from fruits and such.

But there must have been places or times when there was not enough to just live off of plants, are there any stories of Buddhist monks fishing or hunting etc? Early or later Buddhism, doesn't matter.

[Anonymous No.14194102]

>>14191787
>How does the advaitan conception of the True Self as a transcendent pure consciousness fit with the notion of 'realization' of its nature?
Because complete realization is synonymous with It's attainment. It is the self-luminous Real that shines forth when the figurative clouds of avidya appearing to obscure the sun pass away.
>The realization could only belong to the transient nature of thoughts, could it not?
Incorrect for reasons which were explained above. The transcendent Awareness intuitively senses Itself, and in doing so attains It's real nature that It actually was all along
>If the nature of the Self is only to 'perceive', then it could never realize itself and attain enlightenment, could it?
That's incorrect. The nature of the Self is Awareness and Bliss. The notion of "perceiving" is bound up in connotations of duality and subject-object, Atma is one pure bliss-awareness without a second and without any notion of any "other". It is the function of the intellect (which is not the Atma) to perceive the 'other'. The Self does not have to 'realize it's own nature' because It always abides in It's own nature, remaining completely unaffected by Maya. It is only the intellect which suffers the illusion of embodiment, multiplicity, transmigration etc, the Atma observing this is unchanging all-pervasive immutable Bliss-Awareness. The Atma is attainable because when the unreal is negated the Atma that is the basis of everything including Maya shines forth.
>In light of this, doesn't enlightenment and its experience belongs to a transient self?
No, as should be clear by now
>Buddhism seems to BTFO advaitafags on all levels, but correct me if I'm wrong.
If you insist. The truth is that Shankara completely destroyed Sarvastivada and late-Yogachara (like Dharmakirti etc) in his writings by pointing out how their doctrines are logically inconsistent and don't accord with our conscious experience. These attacks have never been answered by Buddhists though, not a single Buddhist thinker has ever been able to provide any sort of reply defending these schools from Shankara's attacks. Not only that but Buddhists have completely failed to ever come up with a comprehensive refutal of Advaita. The one person I'm aware of who tried is Bhaviveka but he confuses Shankara's Advaita with Bhedabheda Vedanta to such large degree that none of his attempted refutals actually apply to Advaita. The only time a major Buddhist has ever tried to attack Advaita he made a complete fool of himself. Most of the time Buddhists have no idea what they're talking about when they criticize Advaita, every point you raised against it was a misconception that you would have known was wrong if you had just read Shankara as he explains the exacts points I just made many times in his works

[Anonymous No.14194107]

>>14191793
>Not to mention, how does avidya "distract" the transcendent self?
It doesn't whatsoever, in Shankara's works it's explained repeatedly that the Atma is completely unaffected, the intellect is where the illusion of embodiment occurs, the Atma observing the intellect does not suffer or transmigrate; instead forever abiding in Bliss. In Moksha this is directly experienced and is revealed as having been the truth all along.
>>14191818
>But there's no explanation for a transcendent realization.
That's not true, Shankara's commentaries are around 5000 pages of dense writing explaining exactly that but you've evidently never bothered to consult them before attacking Advaita
>Nirvana can be 'realized' insofar as it's a realization of the emptiness (lack of) intrinsic reality in the self.
Emptiness and illusions are not self-illuminating or self-contradicting, the emptiness of the phenomena world and the bliss of liberation can only be realized by the witnessing self or Self.
>This whilst the advaitan conception of the eternal Self with its positive descriptors seems to be in a quarrel with the idea of a realization.
When Buddhists say that the only appropriate level of positive description of the Ultimate/Absolute/Liberation is conveniently only the small amount and type that Buddha used, it's the same sort of circular logic as Christian presuppositionalism.

[Anonymous No.14194134]

>>14193589
>i reserve the interpretation of the suttas to the abhidhamma
ah, no wonder you don’t accept emptiness
Abhidhamma’s realist interpretations are divergent from the teachings of the suttas. Perfect nibbāna does not happen after death, it is at the moment of the arahant’s awakening. There is ultimately no difference in the arahant before vs after death, as they are gone, extinguished like a lamp in this very life. How could it be different after death? Parinirvana is not some magical realm or some annihilation post-death, it is here and now in its entirety.
I suggest you be more open to Madhyamika, since the mulamadhyamakakarika is often called a commentary on the Kaccayanagotta sutta, as that is the only Buddhist text it makes reference to at any point. Nagarjuna doesn’t even speak of bodhisattvas in that text.
Be very cautious with Abhidhamma and Theravada commentaries, they contradict the suttas more than you might think. The entire abhidhammic and commentarial interpretation of dependent origination (as occuring exclusively over the course of 3 lives) is their own interpretation which the Buddha never once taught in the suttas. This has immense consequences since DO is perhaps the most important teaching of the Buddha regarding the cessation of dukkha, and so it shouldn’t be taken lightly.

[Anonymous No.14194140]

>>14193637
>Radical Pluralism of the original teachings of Gotama
this completely contradicts the suttas. I will provide some citations soon. The Buddha was not a pluralist, was not a realist, was not an atomist. There is no support for such views in the suttas

[Anonymous No.14194165]

>>14194107
*Emptiness and illusions are not self-illuminating or self-comprehending

[Anonymous No.14194200]

>>14194134
i am completely neutral towards all buddhist schools
my interest is more historical and scholarly than religious
though if i had to say anything regarding my own views, it would be closer to nagarjuna's thought than you would guess from my previous posts
i only write so as to put all views in context and to disregard all people who think they are the wielders of the truth regarding something they know only the surface of, obsessing over sunyata and not knowing the tathagatagarbha and upaya doctrines which come hand in hand with sunyata (along with all Mahayana history)
the basis of my position is respect towards cultures and people that have true buddhist backgrounds, and putting myself in their shoes. if some random anons in a armpit fetish french forum start discussing about my ancient tradition misinterpreting a lot of things about it i would be really offended

[Anonymous No.14194236]

>>14194200
i am not neutral towards western buddhism and all its iterations though, let me make that clear
fuck all that feel good happy-go-lucky shit that calls itself buddhism
fuck western buddhist proselytism

[Anonymous No.14194336]

>>14194236
yea western buddhism is a meme
>rebirth is just a metaphor for your everyday life
>buddha was actually a materialist, when you die it's lights out
>nirvana is when you feel good all the time
>taking the buddhist cosmology seriously is just grasping, and anyone who believes in rebirth is just ignorant, grasping and going against the buddha's teaching
>zen says you're already enlightened so that means i can do whatever i want
>true buddhism is materialist determinism. Sam Harris and neuroscience says there's no self!

[Anonymous No.14194405]

>>14194336
dont forget ted talks and meditation for better business performance!

[Anonymous No.14195018]

>>14193160
>his and the whole teaching becomes irrelevant after liberation. In liberation, all views are wrong views.
This is what the mahayana retards say. It's completely idiotic.

[Anonymous No.14195177]

What do Buddhist teachings say on the topic of extrasensory perception? Anything that talks about the mind but doesn't address ESP is just pontificating after all.

[Anonymous No.14195204]

>>14195177
The Buddha and arhats are supposed to have all kinds of supernatural abilities if that's what you mean.
Metaphysics and cosmology is very rich in Buddhism.

[Anonymous No.14195330]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surendranath_Dasgupta

According to S.N. Dasgupta,
>Shankara and his followers borrowed much of their dialectic form of criticism from the Buddhists. His Brahman was very much like the sunya of Nagarjuna [...] The debts of Shankara to the self-luminosity of the Vijnanavada Buddhism can hardly be overestimated. There seems to be much truth in the accusations against Shankara by Vijnana Bhiksu and others that he was a hidden Buddhist himself. I am led to think that Shankara's philosophy is largely a compound of Vijnanavada and Sunyavada Buddhism with the Upanisad notion of the permanence of self superadded.

[Anonymous No.14195361]

>>14192647
>your mind automatically perceives objects of your experience as real and part of some separate objective existence apart from you
I believe that the unique feeling of "separation" that humans get is actually some type of error correction. That is, when you encounter the feeling of separation, you are finding the flaws in your own mind. As a result, striving to encounter that feeling as much as possible will refine your mind, as becoming aware of the flaws also seems to get rid of the flaws. I believe this is what meditation is for.

[Anonymous No.14195821]

>>14194140
What are the skandas then?

[Anonymous No.14195833]

>>14195821
Answer this >>14195735

[Anonymous No.14196242]

>>14194336
Sounds like Western Buddhism is the Varg paganism of paganism.

[Anonymous No.14196424]

>>14195330

"Historically, some scholars have felt that Madhyamika heavily influenced Advaita because Madhyamika was prior in time and the two schools share the doctrines of maya, ajativada, and an absolute without qualities. Thus Advaita must have borrowed these doctrines from Madhyamika. This conclusion is inadequate because it explains the doctrinal development of Advaita using only the external influence of Buddhism at the expense of internal dynamism within the Vedanta tradition. In order to understand the nature of Buddhist influence on Advaita, two questions must be asked. First, what was the nature or makeup of early Vedanta, and second, what elements of Samkara's philosophy can be found there? This procedure allows us to distinguish the elements of Samkara's philosophy which have their roots in orthodox tradition from those which could be interpreted as Buddhist in origin. In answering these two questions, the conclusion was reached that early Vedanta was not a unified school or philosophy, but a matrix of 'lineages' or traditions. Each tradition contains many different threads of philosophical, psychological, and theological doctrine. The growth of a separate school of Vedanta came out of the need to systematize this multivalent tradition. Samkara in forming a systematic interpretation of the Vedanta tradition drew upon numerous teachers and texts from this matrix of doctrine and tradition. Thus, all of the major elements of Samkara's philosophy can be found in early Vedanta but not forged into a systematic whole. Samkara then stands in relation to the Vedanta tradition, much as Nagarjuna does to the Mahayana. Both took already existing elements from their respective traditions and placed them in dynamic relationship in order to form a systematic philosophy. "

https://open.library.ubc.ca/cIRcle/collections/ubctheses/831/items/1.0093585

[Anonymous No.14196438]

>>14195330
Shankara grounded all his writings on the Upanishads and orthodox Vedic literature. They predate any Buddhist teaching (which in turn was heavily influenced by Vedic tradition).

[Anonymous No.14196790]

>>14192866
> "Greek Buddha" and "Buddhist Literature of Ancient Gandhara"
Respect!
Add to "Must-reed" for myself.

Honestly, I read only one article (another, not in the link) about comparing Buddhism and Greek skepticism. I am not yet familiar enough with Greek thought to discuss the topic.

But it's nice to meet an understanding person.

[Anonymous No.14196888]

This is the problem when you try to intellectualise ideas that go beyond the mind. Both are talking about the same thing but the Upanishads/Adivanta are talking in the affirmative and the Buddha in the negative. This is a concept that goes beyond the limitations of mind and language but they were talking to the current culture, is the times of Adi Shankaracharya, religion was fading so he enforce the idea of the true self but in the time of the Buddha they were so caught up in the ideas of religion that they were rigid (as many in this thread are) so he talked in the negative. Only when you can go can go beyond the mind will you understand.

[Anonymous No.14197233]

>>14196888
Religiosity is fading today though so should people adopt Advaita instead of Buddhism?

[Anonymous No.14197426]

>>14197233
Traditional Advaita is really only fully adoptable and practicable by people who become a sannyasin and spend the rest of their days as possessionless monastic (which takes more preparation to do and is harder but still not impossible to do as a westerner). Fortunately, there have been many other schools of thought in Hinduism which agree with non-dualism but take different approaches to it that are more compatible with a householder's life. Just to name a few, Vishishtadvaita, Lingyatism, non-dual Tantric schools and the Nath-Advaita synthesis of Marathi saints like Jnanadeva all offer beautiful and profound doctrines of non-dualism that can be practiced by someone living a normal life with a job and family, for people who wish to live a life in society those are better options than Advaita, although they can always adopt Advaita and become a in sannyasin old-age after living a full and satisfying life practicing one of the above schools, which already agree with Advaita on the fundamentals.

[Anonymous No.14197710]

>>14194102
I really want to go deep into shankara's works.Can u please suggest where to start and then how to proceed with compelete work.

[Anonymous No.14198063]

>>14197710
It's important to have some familiarity with Hindu philosophical terminology before reading his works. Unless you already have this to a significant degree I would recommmend beginning by reading Deutsche's 'Advaita Vedanta: a philosophical reconstruction' and/or the chapters on Vedanta in Sharma's 'Advaita Tradition in Indian Philosophy'. Guenon's 'Man and His Becoming According to the Vedanta' also is great but is best read after reading one of the previous books. Once you've read at least 1 but preferably 2 of those books than you're ready start reading Shankara.

The best place to begin with him IMO is the translation of his commentaries on 8 Upanishads in 2 volumes translated by Gambhirananda. The 2nd volume also contains Gaudapada's Mandukyan Karika and Shankara's commentary on it. From there you can read either his commentaries on the Brihadaranyaka and Chandogya Upanishads or on the Bhagavad-Gita, which are all fairly long. His Brahma Sutra commentary is long and dense and is best read only after you've read all his Upanishad commentaries as both the text and his commentary constantly cite them. The shorter standalone non-commentary prose/poetry works are best read after you've read at least a few of his Upanishads commentaries. The larger ones like Vivekachudamani and Upadesasahasri (of which the latter is more complex) are best read after you've read at least most of his Upanishad commentaries.

I generally prefer the translations of Gambhirananda and Madhavananda for the commentaries, Allahi Mahadeva Sastri also has a very nice translation of Shankara's Gita commentary that uses slightly more old-fasioned KJV-style English. All of the books I mentioned can be found online on libgen, on archive.org or as free PDFs hosted on other sites via google. These are PDFs of the 8-Upanishad commentary compilation that is the best place to begin with his writing.

https://estudantedavedanta.net/Eight-Upanisads-Vol-1.pdf
https://estudantedavedanta.net/Eight-Upanisads-vol2.pdf

It's not necessary but you may find that reading the Ashtavakra Gita before Shankara may help you understand what he is talking about better, these are the two best translations of it, the second is with commentary.

https://realization.org/p/ashtavakra-gita/richards.ashtavakra-gita/richards.ashtavakra-gita.html
https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.490169

[Anonymous No.14198168]

>>14198063
not him but can i read the brahma sutras last? i just have the gita, and the former left to read.

[Anonymous No.14198380]

>>14195330
>hindu nationalists say advaita is 5000 years old
>it's actually 1200 years old and ripped off buddhism

kino

[Anonymous No.14198596]

Nagarjuna's doctrine of emptiness makes him an eel wriggler.
The Buddha firmly rejected the Ajnana school.

[Anonymous No.14198965]

>>14198168
Yes, that's fine

[Anonymous No.14199079]

>>14198380
There's much more evidence in favor of Buddha taking ideas from and being influenced by the Upanishads than for Advaita being influenced by Buddhism. That claim is the ultimate throwing of stones in glass houses.

[Anonymous No.14199654]

I had an experience a few days ago that seemed like a "call" of sorts to buddhism.
Is this thread a good place to relate it, and maybe seek a bit of guidance?
Might be mistaken, but although I only know the very basics about it, it felt like a clear signal to get on the buddhist path specifically.
Please let me know

[Anonymous No.14199663]

>>14199654
Did it involve drugs?
The call to dharma is strong but it can lead ok one down many paths

[Anonymous No.14199674]

>>14199079
Of course Buddhism was influenced by the Upanishadic period, the Upanishads are a period of breakdown and questioning of Brahmanic hegemony and include many elements of interest to a Buddhist, like materialism, nihilism, atheism, and agnosticism. Nobody is denying that.

The Brahmanic synthesis of the Vedas as sruti is bullshit though. The two golden ages of Indian philosophy were the initial Sakha era of Brahmanic discourse and proliferation, when philosophy was free and open, and people could think whatever they wanted and discuss it even if they contradicted the Vedas, and the Upanishadic era, when people once again repudiated Brahmanic litigiousness and exclusivity and did philosophy without worrying whether some stupid Brahman priest approved of it.

The shittiest eras of Indian philosophy have been all those dominated by orthodox Brahmanism. Arguably a third golden age was the Buddhist revival around 100-500AD, which itself inspired the development of Advaita Vedanta (though Hindu nationalists obviously disagree based on biased readings of the sources).

[Anonymous No.14199680]

>>14199663
I was smoking a cigarette but that's all. That count?

[Anonymous No.14199736]

>>14199654
Join a monastery/hermitage.

[Anonymous No.14199753]

>>14198596
would you call this “eel-wriggling?”:
>”What do you think: Do you regard the Tathagata as form-feeling-perception-fabrications-consciousness?"
>”No, lord."
>"Do you regard the Tathagata as that which is without form, without feeling, without perception, without fabrications, without consciousness?"
>”No, lord."
>"And so, Anuradha — when you can't pin down the Tathagata as a truth or reality even in the present life — is it proper for you to declare, 'Friends, the Tathagata — the supreme man, the superlative man, attainer of the superlative attainment — being described, is described otherwise than with these four positions:
>The Tathagata exists after death, does not exist after death, both does & does not exist after death, neither exists nor does not exist after death'?"
>"No, lord."...
>”Very good, Anuradha. Very good. Both formerly & now, it is only stress that I describe, and the cessation of stress."
- SN 22.86

[Anonymous No.14199773]

>>14199654
you might have a karmic predisposition towards Buddhism. It happens like that for a lot of people.
I suggest you explore the practice further

[Anonymous No.14199814]

>>14199736
>>14199773
Appreciate the encouragement, but as I said, I only know the very basics about buddhism. Do I simply reach out to whatever buddhist org I find in my area? I'd like to speak to someone about this before starting to read texts and theory, just to confirm or dismiss whether this is a genuine call to buddhism or something else.

[Anonymous No.14199847]

>>14198965
thanks

[Anonymous No.14199848]

>>14199814
go check out a temple if you want. Avoid Nichiren Buddhism. Avoid New Kadampa tradition. Avoid Shambhala centres. You might find it uncomfortable though, being the lone white person around all the asians who mainly go to these places, unless you’re lucky enough to live near one of those monasteries founded by western students of the Thai Forest Tradition.
I still see no reason not to read a bit though, perhaps an introductory text.

[Anonymous No.14199931]

>>14199848
Thanks for the help. I'll look up temples in my area then
>perhaps an introductory text
Any one in particular to recommend?

[Anonymous No.14200000]

>>14199931
In The Buddha’s Words or What The Buddha Taught
the former is an anthology of essential Buddhist discourses which lay out the basics (4 noble truths, eightfold path, samsara, nirvana...etc) and the latter is more brief, explaining mostly in the author’s own words the basic teachings of the Buddha
go with what sounds more interesting

[Anonymous No.14200033]

>>14200000
Nice digits
and thank u again

[Anonymous No.14200102]

>>14200033
glad to help

[Anonymous No.14200140]

>>14200000
>>14200033
bhikkhu bodhi is jewish btw, take that as you will ;^)

My recommendation is just to read "The Buddha’s Words or What The Buddha Taught" to get a general feel for Buddhism and in the way he taught, don't get it, don't get too bogged down into it. Go into older and deeper literature after you've gotten a bit into it.

[Anonymous No.14200173]

>>14200140
>bhikkhu bodhi
I dislike his translations too not due to his ethnicity but because he drops the ball on the deeper meanings of really important discourses
I recommended his book anyways because the discourses compiled in it are really basic/foundational ones and his translations are more than sufficient for those topics

[Anonymous No.14200878]

>>14199674
Your reading of the history of Indian philosophy is very ideological and highly questionable.

[Anonymous No.14201454]

>>14198063
Thank you anon.. it helps a lot.

[Anonymous No.14202726]

>>14193460
Have you read both Shankara and Ramanuja or only Ramanuja?

[Anonymous No.14204085]

>>14191787

I assume the relation between the eternal and the transient is like two concentric shapes, the former containing the latter, rather than two adjacent shapes that do not communicate.

[Anonymous No.14204088]

>>14199680
No that's ok I guess

[Anonymous No.14204433]

>>14191787
>then it could never realize itself and attain enlightenment
From the books I've read, this is the paradox itself
You can't know you're enlightened. You just are.

[Anonymous No.14206384]

>>14204085
This, again, is more clearly articulated in kashmir shaivism with the concept of shakti and further, of Matrika and Bhairava

[Anonymous No.14206434]

>>14193460
This, advaita is mostly westerners who don't know their own culture. Vishishtadvaita is far more popular among actual Hindus.

[Anonymous No.14207054]

>>14206434
actual Hindus (Bhakti etc) are more aligned with Dvaita than anything else. Advaita and Vishishtadvaita is only held by the knowledgeable 1% of Hindus.

[Anonymous No.14207084]

>>14207054
It's a wrong to assume that all Bhakti is inherently dualistic, Ramanuja and other non-dual schools besides Advaita combine types of non-dualism with Bhakti and offer copious reasoning and scriptural citations in support of this in their works. Advaita and Vishishtadvaita also tend to be among the most common school followed by Hindu monastics

[Anonymous No.14207099]

>>14207084
>It's a wrong to assume that all Bhakti is inherently dualistic
common Bhakti (the ones you'd find in 90% of Hindu spaces) are Dvaitic, even if they don't admit it. Most Hindus are dvaita by default.

[Anonymous No.14207131]

>>14207099
>Most Hindus are dvaita by default.
I disagree. Sure people who are not educated might not be aware of the theological underpinnings of whatever sect they belong to, but both Vishishtadvaita as well as the various Bhedabheda schools are far more popular than straight Dvaita, and most people who belong to them are generally aware of what the teachings entail.

[Anonymous No.14207169]

>>14196888
Based. “Actual/true self” and “no self” seem to be metaphors for the same thing. The fundamental intuition seems to be something like, we’re all the same, and there’s only an illusion of division between us, if I understand right

[Anonymous No.14207184]

>>14195833
Religions all get caught up in cosmology that might’ve been intended to be considered as either literal or allegorical, or both at once. Either way, they have a source in human intuition that someone interested enough in might find something of value if they try to understand why Buddha’s intuition lead to that specific model of the universe.
Our current understanding of cosmology is very limited and will likely be considered laughable within dozens of years. It doesn’t change the fundamental truths we already know that all religions are all trying to get at, so it’s not worth obsessing over side details

[Anonymous No.14207212]

>>14192311
It’s an obscure philosophical school whose works are fragmentary and pseudo anonymous and which was small even at its peak and died fairly quickly , Buddhism is a major religion with more works than can be read in a life time and is a living tradition

[Anonymous No.14207213]

>>14192466
>spiritual experience and realization is something that is real
I agree that spritual / transpersonal experiences are real. The problem is that ancient interpretive frameworks are shit and outdated because our understanding of the universe and ourselves is radically different. We need to explore novel frameworks and methodologies, not endlessly trying to make the same failed projects work.

>and happens reliably according to spiritual practices.
Here's the thing: most "spiritual" practices don't deliver on the promise of delivering enlightenment or profound self-transformation. If it did, the world wouldn't be in the mess of anthropogenic bullshit it is in. Proponents of these systems usually try to shift the blame for the failures of their system on their practictioners: you just didn't meditate hard enough, surrender yourself to God enough, or study the Manifest Eleventeen Fold Path of the Dharmic Categories or whatever the fuck.

Meanwhile modern science and philosophy is actually making progress trying to understand the mind and how it relates to the world.

[Anonymous No.14207241]

>>14207213
>He doesn't know about the replicability crisis

70% of science irreproducible.
A mathematician very recently stated that the maths themselves may be completely wrong.

But I will say Attention Schema Theory is correct

[Anonymous No.14207243]

>>14207131
no lol. You clearly haven't been to India. Most Hindus are as dvaitic as can be.

[Anonymous No.14207266]

>>14207241
Source on that 70% figure ?

[Anonymous No.14207371]

>>14207266
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/science-environment-39054778

And the math thing

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vice.com/amp/en_us/article/8xwm54/number-theorist-fears-all-published-math-is-wrong-actually

Also read the Wikipedia article and it's sources on the Reproducibility Crisis

[Anonymous No.14207575]

>>14207371
Just looking at the science one, I think you might be misunderstanding what has been found there. Its not 70% of scientific studies cant be replicated its that 70% of scientists have failed to replicate a study.

To illustrate with an example its like saying that because 70% of fruit sellers have sold bad fruit before therefore 70% of all fruit sold is bad.

Likewise the its a problem that is far more concentrated in specific fields of science than all areas generally based on the nature article which is being reported there.

[Anonymous No.14207625]

>>14207575
The fact remains, if 70% of fruit sellers sold bad fruit, you'd rethink trusting fruitsellers.

[Anonymous No.14207635]

>>14207575
Also, regarding the very specific fields-- they are relevant to this discussion

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/scientists-replicated-100-psychology-studies-and-fewer-half-got-same-results-180956426/

[Anonymous No.14207692]

>>14207625
>The fact remains,
Thats a very different fact though. We have gone from science being extremely unreliable by default to just needing to be more mindful about trusting scientists.

>>14207635
Psychology is definitely one of the worst, as are certain fields of biology. Though I will say psychology is specially worrying given its unique potentials for abuse.

The nature article with the 70% figure has a nice break down of other fields which are in trouble

[Anonymous No.14207947]

>>14207692
I never claimed the scientific method itself was flawed, though obviously too open to corruption, but scientism, and academia-as-priesthood is really rendering science more destructive than not at this point.
If people are just making shit up to suit their preconceptions, we already have religion for that

[Anonymous No.14208419]

>>14196888
>>14207169
Not so, the idea of "actual true self" is just hogwash idea that says there's a true substance underlying reality that creates everything. This is counter to the idea of "no self" which says, there are no true substance that creates everything.

The confusion is the language, but underneath the confusion, the two are talking in two very different tone and very different implications. Advaita is talking about something that holds everything is "real" and proposes monism as answer. Buddhism says that's wrong and there's no "real" something underneath and that "no self" idea/foundation itself allows life/existence to flourish.

The idea of a "real core" essence that binds everything goes against Buddhism, in Buddhism, its just a problem of language/illusion. Like a parts of the cart/car can be dismantled entirely and you won't find a "core" car/cart hidden. The same applies on universal scale. Hindus confuse the illusion for real core.

[Anonymous No.14208464]

>>14208419
>he idea of "actual true self" is just hogwash idea that says there's a true substance underlying reality that creates everything
Wrong, Atma is not a substance in Advaita

Buddhist arguments against there being any self remain entirely unconvincing, most of them were debunked by Shankara. In the Suttas Buddha says that to say that the self exists and that the self does not exists are two extremes which are both wrong, subsequent Buddhism made the mistake of interpreting this as justification for arguing that there is no self whatsoever, falling into the very pit that Buddha stated was the nihilistic extreme. Some Buddhists began to realize how foolish this was though which is why they began to smuggle proxy Atmas back into Buddhism like with how Asanga introduced the teaching of non-dual eternal consciousness of Parinispanna into Yogachara which spread to other Mahayana.

>Like a parts of the cart/car can be dismantled entirely and you won't find a "core" car/cart hidden.
This amounts to a simple hand-waving away of the problem that doesn't accord with the undeniable reality of our witnessing consciousness

[Anonymous No.14208515]

>>14208464
>This amounts to a simple hand-waving away of the problem that doesn't accord with the undeniable reality of our witnessing consciousness
Its the same issue. Everyone agrees there's a car, then presented with a car. However once dismantled, the car magically vanishes and all that's left is are the parts. When the parts are reassembled, the car magically starts to appear. Its not Brahma playing tricks on you, its just a human condition/pattern recognition going haywire. There is no underlying hidden true car self. Its all just a fiction created by the mind. Its the same with consciousness. Once you cut open the bodies, all that's left is body parts.

>Wrong, Atma is not a substance in Advaita
What is it then?

>In the Suttas Buddha says that to say that the self exists and that the self does not exists are two extremes which are both wrong
Its called the illusion of self. The sutta only ever affirms the self that is made of skandhas and nothing more. Existence/non-existence of any "true self" is hogwash because the foundations of the idea of true underlying nature is based off of faulty assumptions of there being a plane for which something can exist or not-exist independent/eternally/etc, that's the Buddha's point. That's articulated in dependence origination and the understanding of Sunyata.

>Some Buddhists began to realize how foolish this was though which is why they began to smuggle proxy Atmas back into Buddhism like with how Asanga introduced the teaching of non-dual eternal consciousness of Parinispanna into Yogachara which spread to other Mahayana.
No. The issue of putting in eternalism back into Buddhism has been a problem before the introduction of Yogacara. The whole reason Nagarjuna got famous was to put to rest those ideas in the first place and small and noticeable force in early buddhism was developing to resemble this stupidity. The yogacara is some weak attempt to recontexualize those same idea in the framework of emptiness. Within that framework, there's a group that says "there's a core underlying" and that says its just a positive dialectic spin on emptiness with no underlying core. Whatever the case with yogacara, has minimal bearing as most Mahayana Buddhist have either come to accept the dialectic spin or don't care too much.

[Anonymous No.14208601]

>>14208515
>However once dismantled, the car magically vanishes and all that's left is are the parts.
This doesn't accord with the fact that our witnessing consciousness is a unity without parts. Thoughts, sensory data, emotions etc are all witnessed by a presence separate from them who illuminates them as objects. This Witness is without any parts and is a continuous and undivided prism of awareness through which all of our experience takes place. Thoughts and sensations are not self-illuminating, if they were our waking experience would be a jumbled disjointed mess as independently arising sensations would appear and vanish one after another, with consciousness blinking in and out of existence as the different sensations on which it depended arose and passed away without any witness remaining to perceive them as arising and passing away, the smooth continuity and regularity with which sensations are presented to the witnessing consciousness without any gaps in or flickering of consciousness shows that this consciousness is partless and self-luminous.
>What is it then?
Atma is non-dual Bliss-Awareness which is beyond both 'existence' and 'non-existence'. Vedanta divides the universe into the manifest and the unmanifest, there is no real 'non-existence'. During the endless cycles of universal manifestation that occur a certain set of the unlimited possibilities contained within the unmanifest are made manifest for that cycle and at the end of the cycle the manifest is withdrawn into the unmanifest again. These cycles only occur because of the Brahman-Atma's power of maya though, in reality Atma is before and beyond the distinctions of existence and non-existence or manifest and unmanifest. It is without any distinctions whatsoever that Atma 'exists' as pure all-pervasive formless and immutable non-dual Consciousness, and from It's power of maya emerge such distinctions, but they don't actually apply to Atma. Hence the notion of substance is wrong since it regards Atma as being a "material" whereas the Vedantic view is that both the notions of material and empty space are equally inapplicable to Atma, which precedes them and from which they originate via maya. Even saying that it "exists" must be qualified as we can only think about existing things through the lenses that we perceive them in the phenomenal world under the influence of maya, which is one of the reasons why Advaita says that Brahman-Atma is beyond being and non-being and is not some eternal being/substance like how many Buddhists insist on misunderstanding it to be.

[Anonymous No.14208607]

>>14208601
>the sutta only ever affirms the self that is made of skandhas and nothing more.
Buddha never categorically denies that the self exists, he also doesn't accurately describe the Upanishadic/Vedantic conception of Atma once in the Pali Canon, whenever he talks about self he is talking about the wrong notions of an ego-self or the notion of an individual eternal "soul-substance" inside people, the Upanishadic idea of the transcendental all-pervading Self is never mentioned by him and so whatever he says about 'self' isn't applicable to it, in order for it to be applicable he would have had to describe the Upanishadic idea of Atma and explain why it's wrong but he never did this.
>Existence/non-existence of any "true self" is hogwash because the foundations of the idea of true underlying nature is based off of faulty assumptions of there being a plane for which something can exist or not-exist independent/eternally/etc, that's the Buddha's point.
This not an actual argument but just circular reasoning that ties back to "Buddha said X therefore it's true", you can't prove or even offer good ground for this claim via any logic but can only accept it on faith as a Buddhist, which doesn't make it correct.

[Anonymous No.14208630]

>>14208601
>This doesn't accord with the fact that our witnessing consciousness is a unity without parts
As far as our science is concerned, our consciousness is based on the physical body. In Buddhism, the consciousness is based upon sense organs, so they're not a united and they're not static as senses can be cut off. When you hit head gets hit, your consciousness is cut off. When you sleep its cut off. When you ejaculate its cut off. I don't know where you see the "smooth continuity" "without any gaps."

>Atma is non-dual
>beyond existence/non-existence
Are you saying Hindus don't believe in existence of Brahma or the Brahaman? What they're praying to or for the soul to be reborn cannot be defined as "existence"? KEK. The problem with Advaita is clear. Its trying to use Buddhist language and reasoning to something that they completely oppose on principle and makes a mess as a result.

[Anonymous No.14208664]

>>14208607
Buddha denies eternal self and presents the notion of skandha(bundle theory) as what a "real" self is made up of. The concept of transcendent self is just another cope to deal with Buddha's no self/impermanence applied on universal scale. Nagarjuna deals with this cope answer by extrapolating that no self/impermanence applies universally.

>Buddha said X therefore it's true
You confused contextual argument for general argument. You claimed Buddha said, x. I merely contextualized what your claim was about because you took a surface level look and probably thought "that was it."

[Anonymous No.14208732]

>>14208630
>As far as our science is concerned
yes but that doesn't matter here since Advaita says that Atma is beyond manifestation and formless so nothing science says disproves it because no matter what they trace awareness to in the brain there can always be the formless Atma observing that which cannot be proven or disproven.
>In Buddhism, the consciousness is based upon sense organs,
Yes, that's why I'm saying, it's evidently wrong that our consciousness is dependent-upon sense-organs because our conscious experience is that of being a witness witnessing the data or qualia coming from the sense organs instead of being those sense organs themselves. You don't experience waking moments as limited and circumscribed slices in time of "sounds" "sounds" "temperature" "touch" "sounds" in the sense of jumping from one locus of sensation to another without any abiding presence or synthesis or awareness of anything else (which the hypothetical consciousness at that moment dependent upon the ear, for example, could not do). Instead, there is the continuous locus of awareness that remains the same during waking, to which are presented variously the data of the sense organs one after another. This is exactly why Yogachara had to introduce the idea of Alaya-vijnana because at the end of the day the notion that our consciousness is dependent upon sense organs is incoherent and incompatible with how we actually experience the world.
> so they're not a united and they're not static as senses can be cut off. When you hit head gets hit, your consciousness is cut off. When you sleep its cut off. When you ejaculate its cut off.
The Brihadaranyaka Upanishad explains that during deep sleep (and similar states) the functions of the organs and the mind etc are withdrawn into the Atma, there is nothing else that is seen because there is nothing else to be seen, the Atma becomes transparent like water and one without second, there being no objects that can form a subject-object duality because the subtle organs through which all sensations are perceived are withdrawn into the Atma, that there is no memory of abiding in this state is because memory is a function of the mind/intellect that is also withdrawn and hence inactive and incapable of forming memories then. "And when it appears that in deep sleep it does not see, yet it is seeing though it does not see; for there is no cessation of the vision of the seer, because the seer is imperishable. There is then, however, no second thing separate from the seer that it could see" (BU 4.3.23.), so the examples of sleep etc don't disprove the Vedantic conception of the continuity of the witnessing awareness.

[Anonymous No.14208735]

>>14208732
>I don't know where you see the "smooth continuity" "without any gaps."
I explained it above in the first part of the post how our waking awareness is a smooth continuity and how that indicates the notion of consciousness as dependent upon the sense organs is wrong.
>beyond existence/non-existence
Are you saying Hindus don't believe in existence of Brahma or the Brahman?
No, not at all, I'm saying that Advaita says that while Brahman is the absolute truth and reality, that we cannot apply conventional notions of "existing" to it, because we can only understand such concepts through the lenses of maya and these concepts only having meaning for us insofar as we can apply them to the world of manifestation which is not absolutely real. It is a recognizing that while 'existing' as the ultimate reality underlying everything Brahman-Atma is transcendent to thought and that any label we apply to it like 'existence' is inherently flawed because of how these catagories stem from maya, but it remains true that Brahman-Atma alone is real and is the source of the appearance of samsara.
>The problem with Advaita is clear. Its trying to use Buddhist language and reasoning to something that they completely oppose on principle and makes a mess as a result.
Those ideas stem from the pre-Buddhist Upanishads, The Brihadaranyaka talks about how the unmanifested ether is pervaded by Brahman, which is Itself unmanifested but completely beyond and prior to the elements such as ether along with all other determinations including that of manifest and unmanifest, the Chandogya talks about how all modification and distinctions exist through the mind, maya, superimposition etc while the basis is free of such distinctions. It seems like you just don't understand what I'm talking about and struggle to grasp concepts not framed through a Buddhist worldview.

[Anonymous No.14208767]

>>14208732
>it's evidently wrong that our consciousness is dependent-upon sense-organs
Your "evident-ness" is countered by a hit to the head that causes people to lose consciousness. So the Buddhist idea of consciousness being tied to physical body stands as more evident than Hindu explanation of it being tied to some underlying core essence.

>>14208735
>nothing is real because ...
>but Brahman-Atma is real
kek.

[Anonymous No.14208782]

>>14208664
>The concept of transcendent self is just another cope to deal with Buddha's no self/impermanence applied on universal scale.
The concept predates Buddhism and is mentioned in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad from some 300-200 years before Buddha, so it makes no sense to say that it's a "cope" to deal with Buddhism.
>Nagarjuna deals with this cope answer by extrapolating that no self/impermanence applies universally.
Nagarjuna never properly addressed, mentions or refutes the Transcendent Self of the Upanishads once, he only attacks the ideas of Nyaya and Samkhya and their notions of selves, but not the Vedanta/Upanishads which are different these. The Nyaya self is not transcendent and the Samkhya self mixes both transcendent and immanent features, whereas the Advaitic self is fully transcendent. None of Nagarjuna's arguments apply to Advaita. Also, Nagarjuna had flawed and inconsistent reasoning, a lot of what he says can be discounted (see pic related for example), he switches between two contradictory definitions of what 'real' means according to whichever supports his argument at that moment, which along with many other flaws makes his system fall apart.

[Anonymous No.14208804]

>>14208782
I read the long critique. Its just a dumb retard that doesn't understand Nagarjuana or Buddhism properly and claims buddhist MUST believe in Atma or some sense. I get the feeling he confuses Advaita with Buddhism and attacks Nagarjuna in that regards.

[Anonymous No.14208822]

>>14208767
>Your "evident-ness" is countered by a hit to the head that causes people to lose consciousness
But that's not a problem for Advaita as I just explained because it has an answer for how this doesn't interrupt the Witness, via the objects are withdrawn and there are none to observe. Hence, we have the waking state as our remaining subject to draw inferences from, and when we do this we find that the way we experience waking awareness is not consistent with the notion of consciousness as dependent upon sense-organs for reasons already mentioned. So Advaita is on the better footing here, as the one argument you have against it (via sleep, or getting knocked out) it already has a coherent answer for, whereas the Buddhist has no answer when it's pointed out that the notion of awareness as dependent upon sense organs doesn't accord with our actual experience.
>>14208767
>nothing is real because
>but Brahman-Atma is real
That's not what I said. If you are going to play dumb or misrepresent me that's tantamount to conceding that you don't have any good answer. Advaita doesn't say that "nothing is real", it says that Brahman alone is absolutely-real, and that the phenomenal world is only an apparently-real superimposition in Brahman. At the same time, because the mind is a product of maya and subject to it's influences, Advaita realizes that concepts of "real" which are concepts of the mind are inherently flawed as all ideas are and don't perfectly point towards the exact nature of Brahman, which is why the mind is transcended in immediate spiritual realization. It's a recognition that while Brahman is ultimately real, the exact nature of this "realness" escapes logical comprehension and cannot be fully described or delimited by language but can only be directly experienced.

[Anonymous No.14208840]

>>14208804
>I read the long critique. Its just a dumb retard that doesn't understand Nagarjuana or Buddhism properly and claims buddhist MUST believe in Atma or some sense. I get the feeling he confuses Advaita with Buddhism and attacks Nagarjuna in that regards.
Evidently you haven't read it, he hardly mentions Atma or Advaita in that critique, but rather spends most of his time dissecting Nagarjuna's logic that he uses in the MMK to makes his points by pointing out how Nagarjuna uses inconsistent logic and all sorts of unjustified leaps. Can you even provide any response to anything specific in it instead of vague claims or calling the author a retard, such as when he points out that Nagarjuna isn't consistent about what "real" means?

>Axiom 2 (To exist means to be arisen; hence existence is synonymous with manifestation, and there is no unmanifested existence.) stands in contradiction to another axiom accepted by all schools and even invoked by Nagarjuna himself: that the real is that which has never arisen (has no cause), and hence has no beginning or end, is permanent. One must choose between these two axioms. If reality means becoming, then that which is empty is real, that which is real is empty. But if reality means nonbecoming, then either there is nothing real (a rather pointless inversion of the ordinary meaning of the word "real"), or there is a plane of being which is free from becoming. Nagarjuna is not alone among the thinkers of classical India in promiscuously adhering now to one and later to another of these axioms.

[Anonymous No.14208865]

>>14208822
Explain to me in plain English where the so called "witness" goes once you're knocked out.

>That's not what I said
You're playing hide the ball here.


>>14208840
Dumb. Nagarjuna is consistent about what is real, the author of the critque and apparently you are confused by what it means. He states out clearly that reality of becoming is the same as reality of non-being in that they exist in so far as there's no core that holds them together and thus allows for things to become/change/etc. You're(and the critique guy) still stuck with the idea that for a thing to exist there must be something that must be "itself" part from the parts. When if that's the case, then that thing can never change, never interact, etc and these things cannot cause the changing world to be.

[Anonymous No.14208880]

>>14208804
>Its just a dumb retard that doesn't understand Nagarjuana or Buddhism properly
The author of that critique was an influential western scholar of Buddhism and was in fact one of the very first western scholars to declare himself a practicing Buddhist himself, kek

https://tricycle.org/magazine/richard-robinson-buddhism/

[Anonymous No.14208902]

>>14208880
Its fine that he's one of the first influential western scholar, but that doesn't' mean he's got a clear understanding of the core issue of Buddhism. Its clear that he's just starting to scraping the depth of Buddhism from an essentialist pov. Its a natural thing since that's how most people start to approach things normally.

[Anonymous No.14209094]

>>14208630
>As far as our science is concerned, our consciousness is based on the physical body. In Buddhism, the consciousness is based upon sense organs, so they're not a united and they're not static as senses can be cut off. When you hit head gets hit, your consciousness is cut off. When you sleep its cut off.
This might be the commentarial Theravadin view, but in the suttas the Buddha describes all things (including the aggregates) as empty, not just of selfhood but of own-nature or own-essence. Self-view is dependent on avidya, ignorance, not on externally “real” factors like some truly existing physical skandhas. The only reason there is any designation for there being an “ultimately real physical world” is because there is avidya which allows the self-world duality to begin with. The Buddha was no materialist, and he called materialism an evil view, even more evil that eternalism. You seem to understand that differentiated consciousness (the observer/witness of external objets) depends on name-and-form. What you are forgetting, is that name-and-form equally depends on differentiated consciousness. Sariputta says this blankly, that they are interdependent, not just one on the other. The Buddha compares them to a dyad, two sticks holding eachother up, without one the other falls. I’m not a vedantist but I just wanted to let you know. The aggregates are empty too, and are only taken up as real as long as consciousness as a separate/independent observer is also taken up as “real.”

[Anonymous No.14209460]

>>14208865
>He states out clearly that reality of becoming is the same as reality of non-being in that they exist in so far as there's no core that holds them together and thus allows for things to become/change/etc
The point is that in order for Nagarjuna's arguments against his opponents to work he is forced to resort to inconsistent logic, in some passages he will define what's real as that which is manifested and arisen and then in other passages say that what's real is that which has never arisen, and is beginningless and eternal. These two definitions cannot both be true at the same time, and so they will only work against one of the opponents arguments that Nagarjuna uses them against but not both, Nagarjuna wants to have his cake and eat it too.
>You're(and the critique guy) still stuck with the idea that for a thing to exist there must be something that must be "itself" part from the parts. When if that's the case, then that thing can never change, never interact, etc and these things cannot cause the changing world to be.
Exactly, that's why Brahman in Advaita is immutable, unchanging and as the all-comprehensive principle in which everything is contained never "interacts" with or "causes" anything, but only through It's power of maya (it being the very svabhava of Brahman to effortlessly wield maya while remaining as unchanging Bliss just as it is the nature of the sun to emit light) appears to create an illusory world of phenomena, a world which itself is sublated by right knowledge and is revealed as never having really existed to begin with in moksha. The effect is only an appearance of the unchanging cause, the ultimately unreal manifested world never enters into a direct causal relationship with the cause of Brahman just as it is superimposition which causes the appearance of the snake at night and not the underlying rope where the snake is seen that itself causes us to perceive it as a snake. Nagarjuna's argument here is one that only supports the Advaitic view (Advaita uses similar arguments against Vedanta schools who don't accept the Advaitic maya and who want to believe in a completely-real creation directly caused by Brahman), in case you weren't aware Nagarjuna didn't know what Advaita was and so none of his critiques really apply to it, he mostly attacked Nyaya and Samhkya which are quite different.

[Anonymous No.14209528]

combined minutes of meditation from people in this thread : 0

[Anonymous No.14209539]

>>14209528
meditation is gay af shut the fuck up "whaaaa whaaaa why won't you meditate?!?!!!? whhhaaaaa whaaaa" like shut up bitch lmao

[Anonymous No.14209728]

>>14209460
>These two definitions cannot both be true at the same time
But the two are true at the same time and that must be true based on his understanding of emptiness and it cannot be otherwise.

The snake argument makes no sense. Why is there a superimposition of Brahman in the first place? Why is there a hierarchy to Brahman that delimits each part of Brahman-Atma?

An alternative take on the snake is exists in the mind. In modern world, this is called an fabrication of the mind/delusion/illusion of the mind/etc. Its not a magic cast by a wizard to fool the entire universe. No, you've simply fooled yourself in the mind. Its not an external event fooling you. Its an absurd proposition to believe otherwise.

[Anonymous No.14209820]

>>14209728
>But the two are true at the same time
How so? How can both be true, it involves defining two different mutually exclusive things as real, if one is real the other cannot be for they are mutually exclusive, it's basic logic which nothing can gainsay.
>The snake argument makes no sense. Why is there a superimposition of Brahman in the first place?
Because of maya as I just explained. It is the svabhava of Brahman to continuously weild maya while remaining unaffected by it.
>Why is there a hierarchy to Brahman that delimits each part of Brahman-Atma?
All heirachy in it ultimately collapses into non-duality, any heirachy or distinction is traced back to maya, before maya there is just pure Brahman/Atma (same thing),
>No, you've simply fooled yourself in the mind. Its not an external event fooling you. Its an absurd proposition to believe otherwise.
Wow, I'm blown away by your great arguments, I'm left grasping in vain for a response

[Anonymous No.14209865]

>>14209820
>How so?
Its called two truths and the two "mutually exclusive" both arise from idea of emptiness. One truth describes the ultimate reality and the other describes the mundane. The cake here is the ultimate and mundane are same. Heck, Advaita uses similar reasoning. Where do you think Advaita got it from?

>Svabhava of Brahman weild maya while remaining unaffected
Another idea that needs to be rationalized. At some point, this looks more like a circus trick that hides where the actual substance is and each explanation going down another tangent.

>All heirachy in it ultimately collapses into non-duality, any heirachy or distinction is traced back to maya, before maya there is just pure Brahman/Atma (same thing),
The problem here is if there's no distinction or hierarchy, then how is the atma fooled by brahman into thinking the world that doesn't exist, exists? Seems like dumb shit.

[Anonymous No.14210026]

>>14209820
>How can both be true
If you see a mirage of water and you think it is really water, but then upon close inspection you realize it is only a mirage: that doesn't mean the entire mirage disappears and you're left with some alternative absolute thing that is truer than the mirage. You're looking at the same thing, but you know it for what it is, a mirage. Likewise, an awakened person does not have the mundane/conventional disappear to be replaced by an alternative thing that is ultimate truth, they just know the conventional for what it is: convention. They no longer mistake convention to be more than convention. The conventional doesn't go away or disappear, it's just known as such, convention.

[Anonymous No.14210071]

>>14209865
Brahman and Atma are the same thing, Brahman gets wrapped up in itself the same way you have a dream and feel like it's real until you wake up from it. The dream was always your mind entertaining itself, even though it felt like a world and you were 12 and in school again in your underwear or whatever.

It's the same for the individual soul. Once it is no longer wrapped up in the character and assemblage that is you, it realizes it isn't an individual soul at all, it's Brahman.

Similar to getting so into a movie or book that you forget yourself. You aren't Bilbo Baggins, and Middle Earth doesn't real. That doesn't mean they don't exist on the paper as words evoking an experience simulation in your mind.

[Anonymous No.14210219]

>>14210026
Also to make this more relatable I’d say that both truths are necessarily true and not one more true than the other because the Ultimate truth is defined by knowing the mundane AS the mundane, as the conventional. If you realized Brahman, I imagine that this realization could be defined by no longer reifying the manifold objects of maya as existing beyond convention, while That which appeared as Maya doesn’t actually disappear, it is just known as such: as mundane truth. The Ultimate truth is inseparable from the mundane, because they are just two ways of looking at the same thing. At awakening you don’t trade one truth for the other truth, you don’t trade the Ultimate for the conventional, but you abide knowing them both simultaneously whereas under ignorance you only knew one of them, the mundane. To know the Ultimate is to know the conventional as convention, as empty. For something to be conventionally existent is the same thing as being empty.

[Anonymous No.14210230]

>>14210219
Just to help this guy, by conventional he means arbitrary.

We both agree this wall is named phillip, but that's only an agreement between us. It has a solely conventional and arbitrary status.

[Anonymous No.14210588]

>>14210230
arbitrary is a bad word for what I’m talking about. Arbitrary has almost nihilistic connotations, implying some sort of rejection of the conventional as lowly/unreal and without its own logic or truth to it. By conventional I mean empty, lacking in independent existence without relation to anything else, lacking in self-nature. It doesn’t mean anything like “socially constructed” or arbitrary in the sense that the structure of words don’t necessarily resemble their meanings and we just come up with them.

[Anonymous No.14210716]

ITT: people who have never had realizations speaking from intellectual understandings

[Anonymous No.14211426]

>>14210716
t. Alan Watts

[Anonymous No.14212041]

>>14209865
>Its called two truths and the two "mutually exclusive" both arise from idea of emptiness.
Yes, but Nagarjuna doesn't specify which one he is arguing from when he is trying to disprove the other person in those cases Robinson is talking about, he is just arguing for what can be real in a general sense to show his opponents position is wrong, if he had specified in each instance whether it's only real from X or Y sense then Robinson would have had no critique to make but he doesn't do this. Simply accepting two truths doesn't suddenly give you a fall-back point when you use inconsistent logic.
>Heck, Advaita uses similar reasoning. Where do you think Advaita got it from?
From the Manduka Upanishad verse 1.1.4. which describes a Para and Apara (Supreme and non-Supreme) knowledge, and from the pre-Buddhist Brihadaranyaka Upanishad verse 2.3.1., which describes two forms of Brahma-knowledge, the one gross, mortal, limited and definite and the other subtle, immortal, unlimited and indefinite.
>Another idea that needs to be rationalized.
It's quite rational, having it be the power of maya explains how the infinite and unchanging could be responsible for the phenomenal world in a way that doesn't violate Brahman's immutability or run into contradictions, any attempt to say that God creates a real existing universe out of himself or out of nothing runs into all sorts of contradictions and paradoxes, which Gaudapada discusses in his Karika. Having maya being the svabhava of Brahman like it is the nature of the sun emit to light explains how this can take place without requiring any sort of change or initiation of action that would compromise Brahman's immutability, Brahman always has, is and will wield the power of maya. Advaita accepts maya from the Upanishadic passages that describe it, but upon analysis it's very rational.
>The problem here is if there's no distinction or hierarchy, then how is the atma fooled by brahman into thinking the world that doesn't exist, exists?
Atma is not fooled by Brahman, Atma is not fooled or affected by samsara/maya in the slightest. Atma/Brahman are two words for the same thing in Advaita. It's equally true to say that maya is a power of Atma as it is to say that maya is a power of Brahman. It is in the intellect that where the illusion of embodiment and of being different from Brahman occurs, this intellect and its thoughts is observed by Atma, but the Atma is completely unaffected by anything It witnesses. When people have trouble understanding this it's because they are confusing the intellect and the Atma. The Atma is our own inner Self, but we can't normally discern It because It is covered by 5 sheaths (koshas), which is why the Upanishads say we are supposed to separate the Atma from the intellect that It is normally identified with as one might remove the husk from a stalk of grain. When this is done, it's revealed that the Atma is actually always unembodied, unconditioned, immutable, unaffected.

[Anonymous No.14212531]

>>14209865
>Heck, Advaita uses similar reasoning. Where do you think Advaita got it from?
From Madhyamika obviously (which is the scholarly consensus btw). I've already debate with that neovedantist awhile back about it, even gave him a DIRECT quote from the upanishads that contradicts what he says. His only retort is a few hair splitting explanations like 'b-but if you kinda read it this way then i'm right'.

>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
here's the quote