You know this is true.

[Anonymous No.18266115]

[Anonymous No.18266132]

>>18266115
original buddhism and advaita vedanta are the same thing

[Anonymous No.18266237]

>>18266115

श्रुति स्मृति पुराणानामालयं करुणालयं|
नमामि भगवत्पादशंकरं लॊकशंकरं ||
Śruti smṛti purāṇānāṃālayaṃ karuṇālayaṃ|
Namāmi Bhagavatpādaśaṅkaraṃ lokaśaṅkaraṃ||
I salute the compassionate abode of the Vedas, Smritis and Puranas known as Shankara Bhagavatpada, who makes the world auspicious.

[Anonymous No.18266336]

>>18266132
Why would you compare a useless "philosophy" to Hinduism/Advaita Vedanta?

[Anonymous No.18266481]

>>18266237
Based

[Anonymous No.18266603]

>>18266115

[Anonymous No.18266630]

>>18266115

[Anonymous No.18266691]

>>18266115
>>18266630
>Not sure which to believe in

[Anonymous No.18266697]

>>18266691
>the chad version of both

[Anonymous No.18266765]

>>18266697
Based

[Anonymous No.18266782]

>>18266691
read both and see whose arguments and positions you agree with more

[Anonymous No.18266799]

planning on reading shankaras upanishad commentaries this summer. what do I need to know? I've read some of Guenons writings on hinduism so I have some clue as to the terminology

[Anonymous No.18266874]

>>18266691
Neither. Kashmir Shaivism is the final red pill.

[Anonymous No.18266918]

>>18266874
>Kashmir Shaivism
More like the new LARP

[Anonymous No.18266954]

>>18266799
>what do I need to know?
Knowing the terminology is the most important thing. Sharma’s ‘The Advaita Tradition in Indian Philosophy’ which is available on archive.org can be further consulted if you get confused about the meaning of certain concepts. Starting with the set of eight Upanishad commentaries by Gambhirananda would be better than starting with his Brihadaranayaka or Chandogya bhasyas IMO, as the former contains his Mandukya Karika bhasya which helps as a framework for understanding his other works and for understanding when in his works he is speaking about the conditioned Brahman vs the unconditioned Brahman. The Svetasvatara Upanishad bhasya is interesting but is most likely by a later Advaitin and not by Shankara. Upadesasahasri further clarifies some important points which are raised in his commentaries.

As far as I understand it, when Shankara speaks about the witness or Sākṣī there is still a certain level of conditionality involved, it’s not absolute because the liberated omnipresent Paramatman *in Itself as It truly is* has no association with or witnessing of the jivas delusions, it only seems to for the jiva or jivatman. The Paramatman is devoid of the distinctions of witness and witnessed thing.

Don’t worry if you start reading him and are feeling a little confused, his writings are meant to be understood hermeneutically. It didn’t start to really click for me until I was at least a 100 pages into the 8-part compilation when I was reading his Katha Up. bhasya.

[Anonymous No.18267091]

>>18266630
Pathetic cope

[Anonymous No.18267126]

>श्रुति स्मृति पुराणानामालयं करुणालयं|
>नमामि भगवत्पादशंकरं लॊकशंकरं ||
>Śruti smṛti purāṇānāṃālayaṃ karuṇālayaṃ|
>Namāmi Bhagavatpādaśaṅkaraṃ lokaśaṅkaraṃ||
>I salute the compassionate abode of the Vedas, Smritis and Puranas known as Shankara Bhagavatpada, who makes the world auspicious.

[Anonymous No.18267129]

>>18266918
all Hinduism is LARP anyway

[Anonymous No.18267135]

>can I copy your homework Nagarjuna-san?

[Anonymous No.18267144]

>>18266782
That's asking a lot of this board

[Anonymous No.18267227]

Fixed

[Anonymous No.18267248]

>>18267227
>these deep philosophical and metaphysical systems are somehow defeated by what was essentially just a moralizing magician
Don't think so buddy

[Anonymous No.18267337]

>>18267248
>can't interpret the image coherently
>doesn't acknowledge God's incarnation
ngmi

[Anonymous No.18267356]

>>18266874
Why?

[Anonymous No.18267381]

>>18267248
>"deep philosophical and metaphysical systems...
...to explain why nothing in life matters, philosophical systems included".

The endgame isn't to make your own life harder by causing your mind to spin endlessly in sterile, self-defeating epicycles.

[Anonymous No.18267419]

>>18266874
redpill me on kashmiri shaivism .

[Anonymous No.18267437]

>>18267381
that anon is blind by the vainglory of intellectualism, he is not after wisdom. he begins by equating two people with systems and the third with an individual only to insult him who died for his sins. false equivalency.

[Anonymous No.18267460]

>>18267337
>is a polytheist
>doesn't even understand the trinity
>shits on the most elegant metaphysical system that exists.
You are definitely gonna make it bro, don't just cry and say that you didn't know.

[Anonymous No.18267466]

>>18267437
>he is not after wisdom
Quite the opposite. You're the one who believes wisdom is vanity and think you're somehow superior because you just *squints* love Jesus for forgiving muh sins UwU

Keep your Jesus worship out of threads on philosophy please

[Anonymous No.18267558]

>>18267466
loving Jesus is metaphysics

[Anonymous No.18267589]

>>18266115
they're the same, you drug addicted zoomer

buddhism and advaita...no contradiction

[Anonymous No.18267595]

>>18267227
This man knows.

[Anonymous No.18267600]

Reminder to shit where you eat and in your holy sites because all is one anyway. This is peak non-duality. Hylic whitoids will never understand.

[Anonymous No.18267608]

>>18267600

[Anonymous No.18267641]

>>18266115
There is only one chad; Jesus

[Anonymous No.18267659]

>>18267600
A typical western misunderstanding. Reality exists in levels, so at this level things are distinct whereas at the highest level all is one. Only when one has attained that level can he speak from there. That's why they say highest truths shouldn't be told to men who are identified with their body.

[Anonymous No.18267824]

>>18267248
>>18267248
>repeating the basic Upanishadic format of karma, ignorance, transmigration and samsara while avoiding answering any questions viz. metaphysics constitutes a deep philosophical and metaphysical system

[Anonymous No.18267849]

>>18267824
>i was "god" piloting himself all along I just forgot for some reason
>no you're the nihilist

[Anonymous No.18267850]

>>18267466
Christ is the wisdom of God. Is is through Him we get to know God. In Christianity wisdom is only below Love, which is a virtue from God, not this sentimentality.

[Anonymous No.18267862]

>>18267824
Except that's not what the Buddha does as his teachings on karma, ignorance, rebirth, and samsara are radically different from those in the Upanishads. It's also not what Shankara does as his teachings are radically different from those of the Upanishads. Do you even know what the Upanishads are? Have you ever read-
>/lit/
Oh, no, you haven't. In fact you have no idea what you're talking about at all.

[Anonymous No.18267865]

>>18267466
Read the church fathers. They all speak highly of wisdom. You are mistaking it for human knowledge.

[Anonymous No.18267872]

>>18267129
>>18267135
Seethe

[Anonymous No.18267920]

>>18267659
Shit in the toilet.

[Anonymous No.18267922]

>>18267849
Advaita doesn’t say that God is piloting himself.

[Anonymous No.18267968]

>>18267922
What I've parsed from the board's resident cyber-hindus is that the atman rides in the jivagelion, but since the atman is brahman and jivas are due to brahman wielding his powers you are in fact piloting yourself but unaware that you are god.

[Anonymous No.18268022]

>>18267862
>the Buddha does as his teachings on karma, ignorance, rebirth, and samsara are radically different from those in the Upanishads.
He takes pre-existing Upanishadic ideas and modifies them
>It's also not what Shankara does as his teachings are radically different from those of the Upanishads
No they are not, Shankara arguably has the most accurate exegesis of the Upanishads. George Thibaut, Chandradhar Sharma and various other scholars have admitted as such. Do you have any specific examples of where Shankara’s position differs from the Upanishads?
>Do you even know what the Upanishads are?
Yes, I’ve read them

[Anonymous No.18268067]

>>18268022
>Shankara arguably has the most accurate exegesis of the Upanishads
This statement indicates that you have not read anything on the Upanishads, let alone the Upanishads themselves.

[Anonymous No.18268079]

>>18267968
That’s wrong. Is it because the Buddhist arguments against Vedanta all amount in the end to sophistry that you have to engage in strawmanning instead of real arguments?

>is that the atman rides in the jivagelion, but since the atman is brahman and jivas are due to brahman wielding his powers you are in fact piloting yourself
The statement “Atman piloting himself” would only make sense if the jivas were also Atman/Brahman, which they are not. The Atman can only be considered as piloting that which is not Itself, and even this piloting is relative and is only speaking from the perspective of the jivas, since as the Atman is omnipresent undivided consciousness that is free from volition It’s not exercising willing control over the jivas like how a pilot in the world would exercise control over his vehicle.

but unaware that you are god.

[Anonymous No.18268086]

>>18267968
So how does Atman illuminating itself because it is opaque come into this? Does Brahman's translucence allow it to illuminate only its insides or something?

[Anonymous No.18268093]

>>18268067
I have read the Upanishads and I disagree with your perspective, is that so shocking that someone disagrees with you?

Please, stop with the childish posturing and just make an argument to support your position, if you are capable of doing so.

[Anonymous No.18268123]

>>18268093
There's zero point in arguing with you about books that you, by your own admission, have not read, and about thinkers whose works you, by your own admission, have not read.

[Anonymous No.18268205]

>>18268123
>There's zero point in arguing with you about books that you, by your own admission, have not read, and about thinkers whose works you, by your own admission, have not read.
What are you talking about? I’ve read the Upanishads as well as Shankara’s commentaries on them.

[Anonymous No.18268271]

>>18268205
What even is your main point?

[Anonymous No.18268295]

>>18267850
>dude maybe this time I post my pious, repetitive Christian word salad, I’ll win some converts and defeat alternative theology for good
Anytime I see a blurb like yours, my brain literally shuts off. There is no substance in the dull Christian platitudes you repeat ad nauseum. Go away.

[Anonymous No.18268312]

>>18268295
>word salad

[Anonymous No.18268370]

>>18268079
>That’s wrong. Is it because the Buddhist arguments against Vedanta all amount in the end to sophistry that you have to engage in strawmanning instead of real arguments
There are no "real arguments" for theology.

[Anonymous No.18268408]

>>18268312
>in God through Him the rejoicing in the fullness of truth for the salvation through the love of Christ Jesus the shepherd the olive branch whose innocent wisdom and holy grace descends lovingly, we pray for forgiveness and righteous glory oh our saviour resting in our hearts and mouths your sweet sustenance purifying by faith giving the fruit of patience on our conscience, incorruptible flesh dwelling among us awakening us from sleep and blindness, oh fair goodness and wisdom and guide us along the straight path, oh Lord, amen
This shit. You just fucking pull words from St Paul’s epistles and Augustine’s Confession and bundle them all up in a meaningless assortment that you think is “profound” and will surely convert the nonbelievers of 4chan. Literally all Christian posters do this shit. It’s infuriating.

[Anonymous No.18268421]

>>18267600
This, even Ramakrishna ate a turd and said there is no difference between that and food.

[Anonymous No.18268438]

>>18268408
>You just fucking pull words from St Paul’s epistles and Augustine’s Confession
No, that's what you do. He just posted a sentence and it wasn't even complex or really meant to be revelatory. It was completely straightforward.

[Anonymous No.18268441]

>>18268086
That poster is a Buddhist who doesn’t understand Advaita

>So how does Atman illuminating itself because it is opaque come into this?
The Atman is not opaque, it’s translucent and luminous. It reveals Itself as well as all other things because It is the foundational consciousness in which everything else appears.

“The sun shines not there, nor the moon and the stars. Nor do these lightnings shine. How could this fire? All shine after him who shines. All this is illumined by his radiance.” - Mundaka Up. 2.2.10.

>Does Brahman's translucence allow it to illuminate only its insides or something?
Brahman is without interior or exterior. Insofar as Brahman endows and sustains everything else other than Himself with the contingent degree of existence that those things possess, there is nothing that is not illuminated by Him.

[Anonymous No.18268445]

This thread was moved to >>>/bant/12773039