/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.18008171]

So this guy thinks becoming an NPC in this life and the next is peak existence? What's the appeal in that?

[Anonymous No.18008199]

>>18008171
>becoming an NPC
That’s not what he or Hinduism is talking about. The real NPC doctrine is Buddhism (which says that there are just thoughts and sensory-perceptions, and that there is no self or presence to which they occur; this is what it’s like to be an NPC as they have no inner conscious experience)

[Anonymous No.18008203]

>>18008171
You're a meme-speaker.

[Anonymous No.18008530]

>>18008199
It's perfect ritual adherence to an exoteric tradition while inwardly feeling like you don't exist and believing after death that you will lose consciousness but for some reason that's a good thing and totally doesn't fall victim to the same faults as Buddhism.

[Anonymous No.18008651]

>>18008171
I don't know who that jpeg is but he's wrong

[Anonymous No.18009088]

>>18008199
Ananda Coomaraswamy proved this distinction to be false.

[Anonymous No.18009148]

>>18008199
Buddhism does not deny the existence of inner conscious experience. It denies the existence of a solid unchangeable self. This illusory sense of self is to be transcended through meditation. It also advocates the developing of skillful actions, bodily and mental. In other words becoming virtuous. It's the sublimation of mankind's lower, pleasure seeking nature, it's about overcoming the inevitable ills of life. It's the exact opposite of what an NPC would do.

[Anonymous No.18009155]

>>18008530
>It's perfect ritual adherence to an exoteric tradition
Advaita Vedanta is an esoteric tradition, not an exoteric one, people are not permitted to be fully initiated into its teachings unless they become monks. Advaita Vedanta does not concern itself with ritual either, but rather with transmitting a supernal knowledge that once imparted exempts one from the injunction to perform Vedic rituals, it eliminates the reason for one to further perform rituals
>while inwardly feeling like you don't exist and believing after death that you will lose consciousness but for some reason that's a good thing and totally doesn't fall victim to the same faults as Buddhism.
Advaita Vedanta doesn’t teach this at all, they speak about realizing your own Self (consciousness), which is you, and distinguishing it (yourself) from the insentient and non-Self. This is the opposite of feeling like you don’t exist. They also dont say that you lose consciousness but instead Advaita says that “the knowers function of knowing can never be lost, because it is immortal” - Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 4.3.30.

Advaita Vedanta does not in any sense share the same faults as Buddhism. In fact, it is the Advaitin Shankaracharya who fully elucidates the flaws and contradictions of Buddhism in his writings, more extensively than any other thinker.

[Anonymous No.18009209]

>>18009155
This is the mental gymnastics of a used car salesman. As bad as academic postmodern theology influenced by Derrida.

[Anonymous No.18009258]

>>18009155
>Advaita Vedanta doesn’t teach this at all, they speak about realizing your own Self (consciousness), which is you, and distinguishing it (yourself) from the insentient and non-Self. This is the opposite of feeling like you don’t exist. They also dont say that you lose consciousness but instead Advaita says that “the knowers function of knowing can never be lost, because it is immortal” - Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 4.3.30.

Just a less consistent (aka more deluded) way of stating Buddhism.

[Anonymous No.18009290]

>>18008171
And more importantly: who funded his research and publications?

[Anonymous No.18009382]

>>18009148
> Buddhism does not deny the existence of inner conscious experience.
It typically denies that there is an experiencer who is separate from and prior to the contents of the experienced phenomena.
>It denies the existence of a solid unchangeable self. This illusory sense of self is to be transcended through meditation.
Who transcends it? If there is no remaining entity then there is nobody who can experience the transcendence of the ostensible illusion.
>>18009088
> Coomaraswamy proved this distinction to be false.
No, he merely presented a possible heterodox interpretation of Buddhism which is rejected by 99+% of existing Buddhist schools.
>>18009258
>Just a less consistent (aka more deluded) way of stating Buddhism.
No, it is quite different, Advaita accepts the existence of the Self (Atman) which most schools of Buddhism deny. Advaita says that as eternal consciousness you live forever because your consciousness is eternal and uncreated, this is denied by most of Buddhism. Advaita is logically consistent unlike Buddhism which is beset by many contradictions.
>>18009209
lol

[Anonymous No.18009476]

>>18009290
Go on...

[Anonymous No.18009490]

>>18009382
>Advaita says that as eternal consciousness you live forever because your consciousness is eternal and uncreated, this is denied by most of Buddhism.

Except the "you" which "lives forever" is no different than the Buddhist void. It's a nominalistic sperging about limits and a bizarre lust for annihilation.

[Anonymous No.18009593]

Yes, eastern religions are annihilationist garbage. Not that semitic religions are much better though.

[Anonymous No.18009625]

>>18009088
>Coomaraswamy

[Anonymous No.18009642]

>>18009148
based post

[Anonymous No.18009693]

>>18008199
>The real NPC doctrine is Buddhism
Is this a joke you atmangelion ?

[Anonymous No.18009697]

>>18009593
What is better then?

[Anonymous No.18009826]

>>18009593
>Yes, eastern religions are annihilationist garbage
nonsense
>>18009490
>Except the "you" which "lives forever" is no different than the Buddhist void.
That’s completely wrong, since the “you” that lives on is immutable self-revealing sentience, which Buddhists deny of the void. A void has no awareness whatsoever. Try reading a book on this topic before posting further.

[Anonymous No.18009872]

>>18009693

> “there is only suffering, but nobody who suffers” - Buddhaghosa

> “the person who experiences suffering does not exist”. - Shantideva

[Anonymous No.18009894]

>>18008171
Imagine being a piece of shit who thinks solely through memespeak.

[Anonymous No.18009901]

>>18009894
Mmm yeah I think you're dilating right now.

[Anonymous No.18009915]

>>18009826
>That’s completely wrong, since the “you” that lives on is immutable self-revealing sentience,

Sentient of what? Of no distinctions. Of nothing. Advaita is just dressed up and reified Buddhism, "It's not the Void, it's the All, dude." Nobody is buying your slimy goal post moving.

[Anonymous No.18009965]

>>18009901
The only thing I’m dilating is your mom’s asshole

[Anonymous No.18010009]

>>18009965
Ok zoomer...

[Anonymous No.18010036]

>>18009915
>Sentient of what?
The Atman is sentient of Himself as eternal, unbound, luminous, blissful, constant self-illuminating presence. This is mutually exclusive with nothingness, this being mutually exclusive is not a matter of subjective opinion but you could only disagree with this if you don’t understand or are confused about what the meaning of the words “nothingness” and “void” are.

[Anonymous No.18010468]

>>18010036
>The Atman is sentient of Himself as eternal, unbound, luminous, blissful, constant self-illuminating presence. This is mutually exclusive with nothingness,

You're talking only about Saguna Brahman. Satchinananda is still limited. Nirguna Brahman has no qualities, so its fully compatible with nothingness.

[Anonymous No.18010614]

>>18010468
>You're talking only about Saguna Brahman.
No, I'm not. The Nirguna Brahman in Advaita is still outside time and beyond all change and creation/destruction (i.e. eternal), It is not bound or affected by samsara/avidya and so It's unbound or free, It is pure bliss, and It's nature as Bliss-Conciousness (the true nature of consciousness is bliss and so these ultimately refer to the same thing) reveals Itself to Itself, so It is self-illuminating.
>Satchinananda is still limited.
Shankara doesn't use Satchitnanda in his works as a way to describe Brahman, it's a thing of the subsequent Advaita literature, even when speaking of the Supreme or Nirguna Brahman Shankara still says that It is self-revealing Bliss-Consciousness.
>Nirguna Brahman has no qualities
Advaita means that in the sense of devoid of worldly attributes and distinctions, devoid of name and form and not in the sense that Brahman is not even consciousness/awareness. Consciousness is indistinct and is prior to and different from name and form (distinctions which involve name and form are observed within consciousness by its light), hence even in the absence of distinctions and in the complete absence of name and form, consciousness is still something different from nothingness. Consciousness consists of presence, there is no presence in nothingness; ergo it's wrong to say that Nirguna Brahman is fully compatible with nothingness.

[Anonymous No.18010873]

>>18010614
>Consciousness is indistinct

citation needed

[Anonymous No.18011083]

>>18010873
Consciousness is indistinct because distinctions are things different from consciousness which are revealed to it, distinctions are identified as distinctions when they appear as such to consciousness. In itself consciousness has no distinctions because It is formless, changeless, natural, immediate self-apprehending presence that is free from name and form. It is only because of distinctions taking place within formless, self-revealing, indistinct awareness as something different from it viz. awareness and its contents that they can even be perceived, remembered and cited as distinctions.

Every thing which one could cite as evidence of consciousness being distinct is itself an inert mental object that is different from consciousness, at best forming a simulacrum of it. Thoughts are not aware of themselves but they occur to a continuing sentient presence who witnesses them. To use an analogy if space itself were self-aware, thoughts would be like physical objects appearing within the expanse of 3D space as inert and lifeless objects lacking the same self-awareness that space has.

Every distinction one can cite is just a thought of the mind being illumined or observed by consciousness, that thought is always inevitably something that is not identical with that consciousness in question, so whatever can be possibly affirmed about the distinctions cannot be extended to consciousness because your evidence cited will always be something other than consciousness.

[Anonymous No.18011154]

>>18009872
it's perfectly right
there is only experience-consciousness
the ego-jivatman is illusory
so there is suffering but nobody who suffers

[Anonymous No.18011501]

>buddhism
the fag hag of religions. may as well castrate yourself.

[Anonymous No.18011506]

>>18009593
>Yes, eastern religions are annihilationist garbage. that's based.
I take approximately zero issues with that claim.

[Anonymous No.18011716]

>>18009894
Projection much??

[Anonymous No.18012921]

>>18008171
Yes.

[Anonymous No.18013314]

>>18009148
>solid unchangeable self.

meaningless

[Anonymous No.18013337]

>>18011083
>free from name and form.
which is why you can go to hell right? dont be silly