Mahāyāna Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta

[Anonymous No.19563682]

How similar is this to Advaita Vedanta? Not a "crypto-buddhism" fag, I genuinely appreciate Shankara.

[Anonymous No.19564978]

>>19563682
they both reject that arants are fully enlightened

[Anonymous No.19564987]

Not really similar at all.
Buddhism is antithesis of Advaita Vedanta there is no eternal self.
Also Buddhism lacks any concept of the none dual God Advaitans try to merge into

[Anonymous No.19565003]

>>19564987
Lotus Sutra argues the Tathagatagarbha is eternal.

[Anonymous No.19565013]

Mahayana Buddhism is based and redpilled chad path
Advaita is cringe basedboy cuck last man cope

[Anonymous No.19565054]

>>19565003
Yes the Buddha says this himself in the Prajnaparamita sutra as well not but as some being that exists eternally Tathagatagarbha is wherever his teachings are found

[Anonymous No.19565072]

Hinduism and Mahyana, ZEN, Vajaryana are a monistic Universalism: the totality exists and nothing else. There is no multiplicity, everything is absolutely identical. THis is qualified of ''acosmatic''
They mix this view with a huge amount of symbols, incantations, rituals, worship, idolatry, mantras, deities, chanting,entertainment with lengthy Scriptures with thousands of verses, sacrifice and sacred objects, and rules for lay people in order to create a religion.
For the Hindus and mahyanaists, people have the knowledge that they have a true nature, but people are misguided on what they take as their true nature. This is why the Hindus say that people are already enlightened, they just do not know about it... The true nature of people is not the 5 senses or their objects, but the mind itself with theworld [loka] itself identified with the cosmos, or their deification of this, ie their Brahma or their Buddha or non-duality, and when people realize this they are enlightened. The way to realize this is by relying on lots of sacrifice, chantings and rituals, also on material objects which magically purify the minds for them, like sounds, logic, mantras, little beads, amulets.
Mahyana-Hinduism tries to make a human society, some political system too.

It is only when there is a alledgedly good creator [a god or just ''nature''] that it makes sense to ask the usual question ''why the cosmos produce things which do not know that they are the cosmos?'' ie ''why some good god did not get people to be born directly enlightened? instead of being born unenlightened which produces lots of suffering?''
So far the Hindus have no answer to this ''problem of evil''. The Hindus keep replying with their main thesis, ie ''because people do not know their true nature, which is pure being and cannot be described'' and that's their answer...

[Anonymous No.19565111]

>>19565003
Tathagatagarbha is not the self/god

[Anonymous No.19565139]

>>19565111
illusion of self/god (form) is Dharmakaya (absolute of no illusion)
Dharmakaya is illusion of self/god

You're ignoring the paradox central to Mahayana best encapsulated by verse 5 of Diamond Sutra.

"Since the possession of attributes is an illusion, Subhuti, and the no possession of attributes is no illusion, then by means of attributes that are not attributes the Tathagata can, indeed, be seen."

This passage is the beginning of Dream of the Red Chamber also conveys the same idea:

"Truth becomes fiction when the fiction's true;
Real becomes not-real where the unreal's real."

[Anonymous No.19565144]

>>19565139
form (in this sense expressed as illusion of self) is emptiness (in this sense expressed as Dharmakaya), emptiness is form

[Anonymous No.19565246]

>>19565139
>>19565144

that doesn't show that tathagatagarbha is the self/god
just that conceptual reality is man made and we can free ourself of it

[Anonymous No.19565281]

>>19565246
It's pointing to the "emptiness of emptiness".
It shows conceptual reality has a nondual relation with the Absolute. It's indicating that you're already free of conceptual reality in some topsy-turvy sense given its empty character and the emptiness of relations. This is what led Dogen to take his trip to China.
"If you're already enlightened, what is the point of practice?" I think that was the point of his travel.
Mahayana plays with aporias all of the time. I recommend reading the accompanying commentaries from other patriarchs translated by Red Pine of Diamond Sutra. Verse 1-5 tends to contain the gist of the Diamond Sutra's expedient teachings.

[Anonymous No.19565351]

Mahayana Buddhism rejects the authority of the vedas and assigns gods an inferior position to Buddhas in its cosmology. While both are nominally expressions of non-dualism, it is Buddhism which actually does away with a transcendent creator to be worshiped.

[Anonymous No.19565352]

>>19565111
What's the difference? Tathagatagarbha
>is eternal
>is omniscient
>possesses infinite pure dharmas
Sounds like semantics to me.

[Anonymous No.19565430]

>>19565352
>is eternal
is not so much eternal as being outside the concept of time
>>is omniscient
is not omniscient because is not a self that can have sentience
>>possesses infinite pure dharmas
again that doesn't make it a god or a eternal self
>Sounds like semantics to me.
at the end of the day it is, but semantics are important, the whole point of anatta is to make a conceptual division between identity and reality, is a semantical tool to get to a phenomenological point

[Anonymous No.19565439]

>>19565281
>It's pointing to the "emptiness of emptiness".
>>19565246
>just that conceptual reality is man made and we can free ourself of it


potato potatoe

[Anonymous No.19565461]

>>19565430
Not him, but my point is that Mahayana do not disregard the illusion of self. Illusion, itself, is not severed from the seamless fabric of emptiness. It is more that they discourage clinging to either illusions or emptiness. Without seeking it, we nonetheless effortlessly attained it.

[Anonymous No.19565476]

>>19565439
You are ignoring this crucial but important part. I am pointing asteriks arounds it:
"The Buddha's point is that while we can view the attributes of the body as an illusion, if we can see them as no attributes, as not severed from the seamless fabric of reality, we see the Buddha's true body, ***which necessarily includes the very attributes whose reality was just denied.***"
I am repeating for emphasis:
"which necessarily includes the very attributes whose reality was just denied"

[Anonymous No.19565480]

>>19565430
I can cite scripture and commentary that says it's both eternal and omniscient but I suspect you'd wave it off as "bad translations" thought (even though they are made by scholars knowledgeable in the original language and in the philosophy).
It's really a matter of semantics, but based on thousands of years of investment in a tradition and religious posturing, but non invested parties are pretty frank about the fact that there was much cross-pollination between Mahayana Buddhism and Hindu Vedanta and Tantra and they hardly differ when talking about the absolute.

[Anonymous No.19565501]

>>19565476
fair point, but that doesn't mean that the buddha nature is god/self

[Anonymous No.19565510]

>>19565480
Advaita and Mahayana seem to differ in this key part. In Advaita, the Absolute involves the rejections of illusory attributes whereas Mahayana does not. It's the meaning of the statement Samsara is Nirvana. I do not believe Adi Shankara ever said that the illusion of a separate self is the Self, but I might be wrong. This is why koans are about breaking down one's thought-processes since paradoxical statements like these are not possible to intellectually comprehend. It also fits into the practice of Shikantaza which already acknowledges one as a Buddha or so:

"The Buddha's point is that while we can view the attributes of the body as an illusion, if we can see them as no attributes, as not severed from the seamless fabric of reality, we see the Buddha's true body, ***which necessarily includes the very attributes whose reality was just denied.***"

[Anonymous No.19565542]

>>19565501
I agree.
There is also a quote from the Blue Cliff Record that hints at what I am discussing. This is why intellectualizing is considered a waste of time:

"In one there are many kinds;
In two there's no duality."
(Case 2)

[Anonymous No.19565677]

>>19565510
In Vishishtadvaita the attributes are modes of the body of god (very Spinozan, mind you) and thus not devoid of Self-nature as in Buddhism and even Advaita because their self is the Self of God. God of course is ultimately a blue guy, which is a huge turn off for me. Hindus do so well when they talk in abstracts...

[Anonymous No.19566446]

bump for interesting discussion

[Anonymous No.19566525]

>>19565139
>>19565281

i'm more of a tehravadin but this mahayana concepts are so cool

[Anonymous No.19566560]

>>19565510
>In Advaita, the Absolute involves the rejections of illusory attributes
this is also why advaita struggles so much to articulate the existence of illusion itself, all they can say is that's in brahman's nature to cast that illusion or that the illusion don't really exist, both of those answers are no answer at all, just ways to evade the question

[Anonymous No.19567111]

>>19566525
>>i'm more of a tehravadin but this mahayana concepts are so cool
they are retarded and completely miss the point of buddhism by saying there is a true nature to things.

[Anonymous No.19567119]

>>19565510
>>"The Buddha's point is that while we can view the attributes of the body as an illusion, if we can see them as no attributes, as not severed from the seamless fabric of reality, we see the Buddha's true body,
and the buddha never said this

[Anonymous No.19567267]

>>19565430
>pto-budd
>semantics

[Anonymous No.19567588]

>>19567111
>by saying there is a true nature to things.
is really that what they're saying?
i think mahayana is more interested in delineate a common denominator than to reify human experience
sunyata isn't a thing that's present in each thing like a quintessence, but more a trait shared by all forms of phenomena

[Anonymous No.19567741]

>>19563682
Buddhism is relativism/nihilism on steroids dressed up in ascetic garb
>no essence
>everything is dependent on mental/social constructs
>emptiness itself is empty
>there is no objective truth, only dependent truths
>no objective reality
>no objective morality
>no objective interpretation of buddhism
>samsara and nirvana are neither the same nor different from each other, as both lack an essence
It only works because of the fact that they deny any independent reality whatsoever so they can get away with having a doctrine lacking in any form of foundation.

[Anonymous No.19567848]

>>19567741
There is nothing nihilist about Buddhism, People who claim this are just projecting their own nihilism onto Buddhism
>>no essence
what is "essence"
>>everything is dependent on mental/social constructs
what do you mean by "everything is dependent"
>>emptiness itself is empty
yes just like all attributes have that attribute.
is strength not strong?
is fear not afraid?
>>there is no objective truth, only dependent truths
no there is objective truth
>>no objective morality
this is just a falsehood, not what has ever been taught
>>no objective interpretation of buddhism
again this is just incorrect.
>>samsara and nirvana are neither the same nor different from each other, as both lack an essence
so there is a definite destination between samsara and nirvana idk where you're getting some of this from.
half of what you said you either made up or are repeating outright lies.

[Anonymous No.19567876]

>>19567848
>what is "essence"
What thing is in itself.
>what do you mean by "everything is dependent"
The doctrine of dependent origination in Buddhism, which is synonymous with emptiness
>yes just like all attributes have that attribute.
Emptiness is empty because of the fact that the doctrine of emptiness is dependent on a doctrine of non-emptiness. There is no emptiness in itself.
>no there is objective truth
Kek
>this is just a falsehood, not what has ever been taught
Kek
>again this is just incorrect.
Kek
>so there is a definite destination between samsara and nirvana idk where you're getting some of this from.
Read Nagarjuna.

[Anonymous No.19567928]

>>19567876
>What thing is in itself.
how do we determine this?
>The doctrine of dependent origination in Buddhism, which is synonymous with emptiness
dependent origination is more then everything is dependent on mental/social constructs
>Emptiness is empty because of the fact that the doctrine of emptiness is dependent on a doctrine of non-emptiness. There is no emptiness in itself
you're misrepresenting the entire concept by just repeating the word emptiness

>saying kek when you've been beaten
2/10

[Anonymous No.19567939]

>>19567876
>What thing is in itself.
but that doesn't exist, which thing can exist on itself?
>>emptiness itself is empty
yes, nothing wrong with that? a=a, emptiness is indeed empty
>>there is no objective truth, only dependent truths
not really,. dhamma is an objective truth, but is ineffable, so it can be cosified, that makes any semantic truth relative to our mental context
>>no objective reality
you're reading this right now, that's real enough
>>no objective morality
again, there's a morality (silah) but tehre's no dogmatic moral axioms, each person must find within themselves their own morality, no one can make that work for you
>>no objective interpretation of buddhism
hermeneutics are as old as time
>>samsara and nirvana are neither the same nor different from each other
that's only in the mahayana school
>as both lack an essence
nah, theravada also practice anatta but they believe samsara and nirvana are not the same, you don't need an escence to determine the identity of a thing

[Anonymous No.19567943]

>>19567928
>how do we determine this?
You don’t, as there is no “thing in itself” in Buddhism. Everything is dependent on other things and so on. There is no ground.
>dependent origination is more then everything is dependent on mental/social constructs
Yeah, you have more dependence and relativism.
>you're misrepresenting the entire concept by just repeating the word emptiness
There is no objective interpretation of it. It is entirely dependent on the doctrines it opposes.

[Anonymous No.19567944]

>>19567939
even mahayana don't believe samsara and nirvana are neither the same nor different from each other
the position is that we are within nirvana but the cloud of samsara obstructs it

[Anonymous No.19567949]

>>19567876
>Read Nagarjuna.
maybe you should read Nagarjuna, cos you clearly don't know what you're talking about

[Anonymous No.19567950]

>>19567741
>waaaaah you're a nihilist
Sure go ahead and prove things are permanent and have "essences". I'll wait. While you are busy negating reality into a noetic realm of magical essences, I will continue to affirm emptiness.

[Anonymous No.19567958]

>>19567944
One is not other than the other. You can find this in the Mahayanasangraha, the Mulamadhyamakakarika, the Prajñaparamita sutras, etc.

[Anonymous No.19568085]

>>19567950
based and dhammapilled

[Anonymous No.19568145]

>>19567958
>*one is not other than the other*
violates the LNC because they have mutually exclusive attributes/nature but are still affirmed to be the same and this contradiction is never resolved

[Anonymous No.19568185]

>>19568145
>metaphysical concept violates some logical babble meant to help us navigate a bunch of yes/no decisions
cope and seethe, etc.

[Anonymous No.19568910]

>>19563682
I too genuinely appreciate Shakira because she’s on tonight and her hips don’t lie and she’s starting to feel it’s right all the attraction the tension baby she is perfection.

[Anonymous No.19569195]

>>19565111
Yes It is

[Anonymous No.19569226]

>>19563682
Dharma is not something that should be understood if not followed, Buddhism is purely holistic and does not need metaphysical understanding to achieve what it claims

[Anonymous No.19569267]

>>19569226
What does Buddhism claim
What does Buddhism achieve?

Nothing.

Nothing at all.

[Anonymous No.19569387]

>>19569267
>>What does Buddhism claim
That suffering is conditioned and there is way to end suffering
>>19569267
>>What does Buddhism achieve?
end of suffering duh

[Anonymous No.19569398]

>>19569387
Buddhism achieves the end of attachment to suffering, not the end of suffering mate.

[Anonymous No.19569419]

>>19563682

In my understanding, all Buddhism rests on a Vedic foundation. It's just that the Vedanta was extremely corrupt in the time when the Buddha started teaching, so he had to deny and straightout refuse to talk about everything that was not practically applicable or prone to being misused. He was not really against the core of Vedanta; he just denied its corrupted application.

When it comes to Shankara, I do not really see what the problem in being a crypto-buddhist is. He just revived the Vedantic movement in an environment where something similar had (probably) started happening to Buddhism. If there are shades of Buddhism in his works, so what? It is all done for the welfare of humanity. If some stream has gotten something right, it is more than welcome to integrate it into teachings that are timetested.

In my experience, the Upanishads are the heights of religious scriptures. If I had to choose, they stand the tallest among all. Still, I love great works from Buddhism also and do not really consider the differences to be that important. It is just a different approach from a different angle.

[Anonymous No.19569682]

>>19568185
>Buddhism is more logical than other doctrines like Hindu philosophy
>aside from these unresolved contradictions that I get frustrated and tell people to cope and seethe when they ask me about it, we have those logical problems but it’s okay because Buddhism isn’t all about logic except when I want to portray it as such, which I back away from when its contradictions are pointed out
OH NO NO NO NO NO

[Anonymous No.19569796]

Where do I start with Mahayana Buddhism? The Lotus Sutra?

[Anonymous No.19569800]

>>19569419
you are right but you're missing the simpler possibility, that these threads are made by guenonfag so he can have the same argument every day forever

[Anonymous No.19569895]

>>19565072
Retard

[Anonymous No.19569902]

>>19566560
>both of those answers are no answer at all, just ways to evade the question
??

[Anonymous No.19570046]

>>19569682
Believing in blue skydaddy is not "logic" unless logic is meant to deny reality in favor of capeshit, in which case logic is just priestly nonsense. Buddhism refuted the theistic schools two thousand years ago.

[Anonymous No.19570058]

>>19569796
That or the Heart Sutra. Or the Lankavatara. All good starting points. But I would recommend also reading some of the nikayas first because Mahayana assumes you are familiar with many of the same concepts introduced there, e.g. anatman, skandhas, pratitya samutpada etc

[Anonymous No.19570113]

>>19568145
the non contradiction principle only applies to substance based ontologies, which are outdated and have huge systemic problems, buddhism uses a relationship based ontology, in which "contradictions" are part of a dialectic articulation
also advaita violates the LNC all the time, the most obvious case is his god that's non causation but generates causation at the same time
>>19569226
>oes not need metaphysical
this, buddhism uses phenomenology a more advanced form of metaphysics that throw out the ontotheologial apsects of metaphysics(trying to explain the origin of the world/causation thru metaphysics, which is impossible) and just let the pure form of metaphysics, explaining the categories of being, just like hegel, heidegger and the most advanced philosophers of the west
>>19569902
when you say that god can exist outside of causation while being causation just "because it's his nature" that's like explaining the proccess of photosynthesis by saying, it's in the "plant's nature to do so", instead of talking about chlorophyll and sunlight, you're not explaining anything, just dodging the question completly

[Anonymous No.19570125]

>>19569800
>so he can have the same argument every day forever
he's the perfect example of how samsara exist and operates

[Anonymous No.19570196]

>>19568145
>>19570113
Also, I recommend reading this:
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5a4e1f91e45a7c4ded9639ca/t/5be9b46840ec9a97ddce665a/1542042728881/Garfield+Priest+2003+-+Nagarjuna+and+the+Limits+of+Thought.pdf
It's a very good essay.

[Anonymous No.19570222]

>>19568145
>>19569682
advaita violates the non contradiction law all the time, Mithyātva being neither real nor unreal is an obvious example

[Anonymous No.19570258]

>>19568145
>>19570222
>>19569682
Dharmic religions are largely based on paraconsistent forms of logic. You see it in the Catuṣkoṭi and Tetralemma for example.

[Anonymous No.19570381]

How does Tathagatagarbha relate to concepts such as Sunyata or Dhamradhatu? My knowledge on Buddhism is quite limited so sorry if this sound odd

[Anonymous No.19570427]

>>19570381
Let's look at this quote:
"Before one studies Zen, mountains are mountains and waters are waters; after a first glimpse into the truth of Zen, mountains are no longer mountains and waters are no longer waters; after enlightenment, mountains are once again mountains and waters once again waters."

I'll break it up into three statements and explain:

1. "Before one studies Zen, mountains are mountains and waters are waters" -- conventional realm

2. "after a first glimpse into the truth of Zen, mountains are no longer mountains and waters are no longer waters" -- emptiness or the absolute, also sometimes referred to as Tathagatagarbha or Dharmakaya or Dharmadhatu

3. "after enlightenment, mountains are once again mountains and waters once again waters." -- emptiness of emptiness, nondual/complementary relationship of conventional and emptiness (#1 & #2), shows conventional and absolute realms are "not one, not two".

[Anonymous No.19570599]

>>19570381
These are all ways of explaining "the same thing" emphasized differently in different areas of Mahayana
>Tathagatagarbha
Basically, the potential of all sentient beings to attain 'enlightenment' or realize buddhahood
>Sunyata
Instrinsic lack of an own self-nature or permanent essence to any entity or being. Permanence in Buddhism is understood to mean complete inefficacy, insofar as a permanent thing cannot do anything whatsoever as that would entail a change. Hence sunyata is the summation of a doctrine of radical momentariness.
>Dharmadhatu
Literally the base of dharmas, in the sense of a "ground" for phenomena or entities. Not really in a causal sense of production or the like but that of support. Like a flat plane to which all things are immanent, in a kind of Spinozist/Deleuzean sense.
So to tie that all together, an enlightenment engendering buddha-nature is only possible because of the emptiness of phenomena, which allows them to to be momentary on a plane of immanence and hence to overcome ignorance and achieve a non-duality within emptiness. Several Indian texts and Tibetan commentaries translated by Karl Brunnholzl deal with the three concepts you are asking about and he provides copious endnotes. It is nearly having a teacher in person. It is important to use materials from persons well enmeshed in the traditions and not whatever pop-wellness mcmindful books are marketed about. This applies equally to both Mahayana and Theravada

[Anonymous No.19570605]

>>19570381
it's difficult because Mahayana is a just an incoherent doctrines by various gurus, each one saying they are more enlightened than the previous ones. And from time to time, some smart ass guru, come up with some virtue signaling doctrine saying they merge two conflicting doctrines. This happens centuries after centuries and so on.
The best part is that the unification of one smartass guru, is competently different from the unification of another one centuries later.

So at the end you get various patchworks of allegedly buddhist teachings which turns out have nothing in common about buddhism.

[Anonymous No.19570612]

>>19570258
Logic is useless in buddhism, but very important in Vajrayana and Brahminism.

[Anonymous No.19570625]

>>19570605
>various patchworks of allegedly buddhist teachings which turns out have nothing in common about buddhism.
This is only a problem if you are some sort of hyper-platonist who believes in and is attached to the One True Buddhism, one you have never really observed in any case, at the negation of all the others. Otherwise what issue is there in studying the multiple interpretations and deciding which is the most appropriate for your situation?

[Anonymous No.19570668]

>>19570612
>Logic is useless
logic is a broad term, there's all kinds of logical systesm, clasical logic designed to study arguments isn't all that good for buddhism cos buddhism tries to engage with the non semantic aspects of reality, so a semantic system will be inadecuate, but things like hegelian logic could work quite well

[Anonymous No.19570729]

>>19563682
Academic here. With oriental religions it's impossible to ascertain trurth and sources as the authorship is much more fluid than in the west. What I can tell you is that both Vedanta and Mahayana Buddhism were influenced by brahmanism where both took the concept of an absolute immanence from. Other than that Buddhism has mostly developed a decentralised perspective and is not interested in the same metaphysical aspects as Vedanta. You could say that Buddhism is more agnostic than Vedanta but Shankara also was agnostic when compared to Vedic Brahminism. That is why the absolutist Monism of Vedanta philosophycally matured in the mediaeval period with dualistic writers. By comparison, Mahayana Buddhism remains largely oral and not that reliable for study in written forms

[Anonymous No.19570767]

>>19570729
>Mahayana Buddhism remains largely oral and not that reliable for study in written forms
Some academic you are. Maybe in the 1920s there was a lack of translations into modern Western languages, but there are plenty of Mahayana texts and commentaries since rendered into English, French, German, etc., not to mention the thousand years of Sanskrit to Chinese, Tibetan, Japanese, etc.

[Anonymous No.19570806]

>>19570612
>logic is useless in Buddhism
>who are Dignaga, Dharmakirti, Tsongkapa
Reminder that this site is filled with ignorant teens that will boldly assert false things as if they were true.

[Anonymous No.19570835]

>>19565072
>It is only when there is a alledgedly good creator [a god or just ''nature''] that it makes sense to ask the usual question ''why the cosmos produce things which do not know that they are the cosmos?'' ie ''why some good god did not get people to be born directly enlightened? instead of being born unenlightened which produces lots of suffering?''
>So far the Hindus have no answer to this ''problem of evil''. The Hindus keep replying with their main thesis, ie ''because people do not know their true nature, which is pure being and cannot be described'' and that's their answer...
This isn’t a problem of evil, it’s trying to answer why there is something rather than nothing, which is a question that doesn’t have an answer other than “it just does”. Under Advaita people aren’t “unenlightened” because to live without the reality of Brahman is to not even be conscious at all.

[Anonymous No.19570894]

>>19570599
The Lankavatara Sutra described Tathagatagarbha as equivalent to emptiness.
>>19563682

What I consider key Ch'an and Zen texts along with best English translations:

1. Lotus Sutra (best tranlations are Hurvitz and BDK; I also recommend Ziporyn's introduction too -- but the translation it's in is bad. I transcribed that one and can share it though.)

2. Diamond Sutra (Red Pine translation)

3. Platform Sutra (Red Pine and/or Yampolsky translation)

4. Lankavatara Suta (Red Pine)

5. Blue Cliff Record (Thomas Cleary translation)

[Anonymous No.19570981]

>>19570113
> the non contradiction principle only applies to substance based ontologies, which are outdated
“True ideas do not change or develop, but remain as they are in the timeless 'present.” ― René Guénon.

“Anyone who denies the law of non-contradiction should be beaten and burned until he admits that to be beaten is not the same as not to be beaten, and to be burned is not the same as not to be burned.”
― Avicenna, Metaphysics

> and have huge systemic problems,
Not as much problems as trying to incorporate unresolved violations of laws of logic in Buddhism into a “relations based ontology” that never ends up resolving those logical problems, instead just sweeping them under the rug.
> also advaita violates the LNC all the time
No, it doesn’t
>the most obvious case is his god that's non causation but generates causation at the same time
That’s not a violation of the LNC because it’s not affirming two mutually exclusive things at the same time and about the same thing. Advaita is not saying God is both the causal origin of maya (in a causal relationship with it) and that God is not participating in causal relationships. Advaita is instead saying that A) Brahman’s nature is to acausally project mithya or falsity/mithya and that B) causal relations only exist within maya in the relation of one maya object to another.

Why does this mean its not a violation of the LNC? Because causality only inheres as a relation between two things in the realm of multiplicity, there can be no real causal relations in a single, undivided, undifferentiated, unchanging Absolute reality like Nirguna Brahman, because there is nothing else there aside from Nirguna Brahman that can be the object or means of any relation. So, from an acausal supreme reality, maya as falsity or cast or projected, and then causality seems to empirically structure experience within the may world, but there is no real existing no casual relationship between Brahman and maya because when causality is ultimately false the projection of it as falsity doesn’t require a real causal relation between two real things be its origin, it just requires that something real can project falsity and the semblance of causality as part of that. And that fact of projecting it, which isn’t the same as the projected maya but rather which is Brahman’s self-nature of being a projector, is not itself a casual relation but just an inherent power, which effortlessly projects virtual appearances. What projects maya acausally is just the inherent nature of an undivided acausal supreme reality fulfilling its function. It only becomes a violation of the LNC if you do as Advaita *DOESN’T* do and try to say God is beyond causality while at the same time existing in a real causal relationship with the universe as its origin.

[Anonymous No.19571010]

>>19570222
> advaita violates the non contradiction law all the time, Mithyātva being neither real nor unreal is an obvious example
Wrong, that’s not a violation of the law of non-contradiction because its not affirming two mutually exclusive things to be true, I dont think you know what the law of non-contradiction actually is.

Saying that Mithya (C) is neither absolute being (A) not complete non-being (B) is not making two mutually exclusive affirmations, just like saying a bronze medal (C) is neither the gold medal (A) nor the silver medal (B). There is nothing contradictory involved in the three medals all being separate from each other.

[Anonymous No.19571052]

>>19570981
>Why does this mean its not a violation of the LNC? Because causality only inheres as a relation between two things in the realm of multiplicity, there can be no real real causal relations [...] because there is nothing else there aside from Nirguna Brahman that can be the object or means of any relation [...] causality is ultimately false [...] something real can project falsity and the semblance of causality as part of that. And that fact of projecting it [...] is Brahman’s self-nature of being a projector, is not itself a casual relation but just an inherent power [...] It only becomes a violation of the LNC if you do as Advaita *DOESN’T* do and try to say God is beyond causality while at the same time existing in a real causal relationship with the universe as its origin.
Ah so your answer after cutting the crap is that causality doesn't even exist for you to contradict in the first place with your doctrines about god. Incredible priestly cope. Is this the power of brahmin breaking, that the Buddhas have forced you to completely abandon any sense of reality whatsoever. It's all and well for the, uh, Buddhist, to deny causality, but now you as a definitely-not-Buddhist are denying causality to Brahman and trying to affirm him as real at the same time? Very cute.

[Anonymous No.19571082]

>>19563682
The three most important ideas that distinguish Mahayana from Theravada:

1) the idea of the One Vehicle (ekayana). All teachings are "skillful means" in order to arrive at the One Vehicle. There is an acknowledgement there are many different skillful means, but they all converge at the One Vehicle.

2) the Bodhisattva ideal is valued moreso than arahants or pratekeyabuddhas. Mahayana place heavy emphasis on the idea of liberating all sentient beings and not just oneself.

3) a tendency to describe the absolute as nondual based on Sunyata, which has been discussed a lot in this thread.

[Anonymous No.19571143]

Is it an actual Advaita belief that the Atman is just Brahman experiencing itself through finite, deluded eyes? That the Brahman is just throwing himself into an infinite number of finite lifetimes to experience the trials, tribulations, highs and lows of “life”? That “all the world is a stage” and Brahman enjoys playing all the parts himself, but he enjoys cutting off each part from knowledge of the whole because it intensifies the individual experience? And if this is the basis for Brahman in Advaita Vedanta, it seems that the concept of Sunyata is entirely distinct from the concept of Brahman. I don’t understand how people read the Upanishads and say that the Atman-Brahman identification is in any way related to the concept of Sunyata.

[Anonymous No.19571516]

>>19571010
>because its not affirming two mutually exclusive things to be true,
yes it does saying something is not real(A) is negating it so=-A
saying something is not unreal is negating the negation so-(-A)=A
so saying osmething is neither real nr unreal is saying A=-A which is by deffiniton breaking the non contradiction rule
I dont think you know what the law of non-contradiction actually is
i think you're the one who knows nothign about basic logic, you should stop reading guenon and start reading some logic textbooks

>There is nothing contradictory involved in the three medals all being separate from each other.
lol your example is propousing 3 different kinds of substances, in that sense mithya should be a different substance than brahman thus making advaita a dualisitic(or even worst totally pluraslistic) cosmology, to wich the rpoblem of how those substances can be connected arise

>Not as much problems as trying to incorporate unresolved violations of laws of logic in Buddhism
what problems? the problem of non causation creating causation? you htik advaita resolved that problem? by jsut saying "it's in god's nature to do so? that'sa form of naturalistic fallacy, advaita din't resolve it, they sweeped under the rug, buddhism just recoginze that such a problem can't be articulated semantically, just like Kant and all modern philosophers did
>Brahman’s nature is to acausally project mithya or falsity/mithya
that's just a fancy way of saying that non causality creates causation, sicne brahman's nature should be part of non causation if brahman's is non causal beyond change, just saying it's in his nature is again a naturalistic fallacy, you're just saying that brahman does it because he just can, that it's in non-causality's nature to create causes, do you see how contardictory that sounds?

[Anonymous No.19571557]

>>19570981
>to be beaten is not the same as not to be beaten, and to be burned is not the same as not to be burned.”
oh my seems like Guenonfag has a point there

oh wait
>because there is nothing else there aside from Nirguna Brahman that can be the object or means of any relation. So, from an acausal supreme reality, maya as falsity or cast or projected,

seems like to be beaten or not be beaten are the same in the end

so what is is dude? is someone actually being beaten and thus the non contradiction principle is a valid ontology or causation is just an illusion in which case contradictions can't even be possible?
you can't have your cake and eat it too bro

[Anonymous No.19571567]

>>19571010
>Saying that Mithya (C) is neither absolute being (A) not complete non-being (B) is not making two mutually exclusive affirmations, just like saying a bronze medal (C) is neither the gold medal (A) nor the silver medal (B). There is nothing contradictory involved in the three medals all being separate from each other.
being is a binomial category, you can't exist and not exist at the same time, or partially exist

[Anonymous No.19571571]

>>19563682
same thing, non-duality

[Anonymous No.19571661]

>>19571143
Not an expert on this but that sounds more like saivism.

[Anonymous No.19571717]

>>19570729
>What I can tell you is that both Vedanta and Mahayana Buddhism were influenced by brahmanism where both took the concept of an absolute immanence from.
Lmao you're no academic, nobody believes your retarded larp.

[Anonymous No.19571757]

>>19571052
>forced you to completely abandon any sense of reality whatsoever
No, the undecaying Absolute reality is not being denied at all
>It's all and well for the, uh, Buddhist, to deny causality,
But without having any serious answer for why is there the appearance of it in the first place
>but now you as a definitely-not-Buddhist are denying causality to Brahman and trying to affirm him as real at the same time? Very cute.
Affirming something as real isn’t mutually exclusive with affirming it as existing beyond causal relations

[Anonymous No.19571839]

>>19571757
>the undecaying Absolute reality is not being denied at all
but you need to negate inmediate reality, which is the most nihilistic thing ever

>But without having any serious answer for why is there the appearance of it in the first place
buddhist answers are ten time better than it's just like this because it's in god's nature to be like this

[Anonymous No.19571900]

>>19569267
Nirvana as a way of inmortality

[Anonymous No.19572048]

>>19571516
>because its not affirming two mutually exclusive things to be true,
>yes it does saying something is not real(A) is negating it so=-A
Nope, you apparently dont understand how logic works. Saying “mithya” is not A (real existence) is not saying that mithya is the negation of A (i.e. -A). Denying that something is A could be done for the purpose of affirming that it is instead B, C, D, F etc, none of which are automatically the same as -A, they may be something else totally different than -A.

>saying something is not unreal is negating the negation so-(-A)=A
>so saying osmething is neither real nr unreal is saying A=-A which is by deffiniton breaking the non contradiction rule
Wrong, because Advaita isn’t saying that mithya = both A and -A. Advaita is saying that:

A =/= B =/= -A

which can also be written as:

A =/= B =/= C

Denying that mithya is true being (A) doesn’t affirm mithya as it’s opposite of total non-being(-A), because there is the 3rd option of the false indeterminate that it fits into (as B) instead of as A or -A. So, there was an error in your argument involving the assumption that denying that something is A entails holding to it as -A instead of as B, C, D, which is the logical error that undermined your argument.

>There is nothing contradictory involved in the three medals all being separate from each other.
>lol your example is propousing 3 different kinds of substances, in that sense mithya should be a different substance than brahman thus making advaita a dualisitic(or even worst totally pluraslistic) cosmology, to wich the rpoblem of how those substances can be connected arise
Brahman is the only one that actually and truly exists, the false is directly projected by a power inhering in Brahman, making it contingent upon Brahman, a connection of one-way and utter dependence. The 3rd category of total non-being also does not have real existence, just like mithya, but unlike mithya non-being does not appear ever even as illusion.

[Anonymous No.19572056]

>>19571516
>Not as much problems as trying to incorporate unresolved violations of laws of logic in Buddhism
>what problems?
there being an infinite regress in accounting for the cause or samsara
affirming the absolute (Nirvana) as nondifferent from the relative (Samsara) despite them having different natures (violates LNC)
holding that Parinirvana isnt an annihilation but also that nothing experiences it and nothing about us continues into it (so everything about us is indeed annihilated)
>the problem of non causation creating causation? you htik advaita resolved that problem?
Yes
>by jsut saying "it's in god's nature to do so? that'sa form of naturalistic fallacy,
No it’s not, naturalistic fallacy has to do with morality which has no relation to this subject right now, What Advaita is doing is anchoring causality as being contingent upon a non-causal absolute reality, the contingent cannot be supported by prior contingency ad nauseam or there is an untenable regress
>advaita din't resolve it, they sweeped under the rug,
Anchoring it as contingent upon an acausal reality IS solving it, just in a way that God-hating trannies, crypto-materialists and hylics (I repeat myself) resent
>buddhism just recoginze that such a problem can't be articulated semantically, It seems Buddha didnt know the answer and didn't have one
>Brahman’s nature is to acausally project mithya or falsity/mithya
>that's just a fancy way of saying that non causality creates causation
No, it’s not. It’s saying that in absolute reality where there is no real true causal relations or differences that could serve as the basis of a relation, that very reality by its own power appears as maya and causality, saying this doesn’t entail that it’s doing so by entering into a causal relation with that projection. The projection of maya is prior to and above the realm where there is any multiplicity of objects that a relation like a causal relation can link together.
>since brahman's nature should be part of non causation if brahman's is non causal beyond change, just saying it's in his nature is again a naturalistic fallacy,
What do you mean by “a part of non-causation”? Brahman is acausal and just projects the false semblance of causality while not entering into any real causal relations. You misused ‘naturalistic fallacy’ twice now
>you're just saying that brahman does it because he just can, that it's in non-causality's nature to create causes, do you see how contardictory that sounds?
It only sounds contradictory because you’re deliberately twisting my words you sophist:

“Brahman acausally projecting the false semblance of something while remaining alone as the only truly existent thing” =/= “Brahman exists in a causal relation between two real things where Brahman is the cause of which X is the effect”

[Anonymous No.19572071]

>>19571557
> oh wait
>because there is nothing else there aside from Nirguna Brahman that can be the object or means of any relation. So, from an acausal supreme reality, maya as falsity or cast or projected,
>seems like to be beaten or not be beaten are the same in the end
Only if you make the mistake of treating real existence and false appearance as the same. If you correctly distinguish them then saying “true existence alone exists while on the other hand falsity falsifies without itself being true existence” then there is no contradiction involved.
>so what is is dude? is someone actually being beaten and thus the non contradiction principle is a valid ontology or causation is just an illusion in which case contradictions can't even be possible?
Nothing Im or Advaita is saying violates the LNC, you that maya is being projected as contradicting that Brahman alone exists but this is making a mistake and forgetting that false appearance/projection isn’t true being.

[Anonymous No.19572094]

>>19571567
> being is a binomial category
So? That it’s binomial doesn’t entail any logical contradiction in not assigning mithya to either one and instead holding it as belonging to a 3rd category. If the claim that being is binomial is cited as an argument to purportedly show that mithya cannot belong to a different 3rd category because everything belongs to one (being) or the other (non-being) then it becomes a case of the fallacy of circular reasoning that presupposes what it sets out to prove, taking that presupposition as its own proof which is a logical fallacy.

[Anonymous No.19572226]

>>19572048
>Saying “mithya” is not A (real existence) is not saying that mithya is the negation of A
>you apparently dont understand how logic works
saying somethingis not A is negating A thus=-A, that's ho wnegation works,that's logic 101
if you say something is B instead of A you're not doing a negation
>>19572048
>enying that mithya is true being (A) doesn’t affirm mithya as it’s opposite of total non-being(-A), because there is the 3rd option of the false indeterminate that it fits into (as B) instead of as A or -A. So, there was an error in your argument involving the assumption that denying that something is A entails holding to it as -A instead of as B, C, D, which is the logical error that undermined your argument.
but if there's a B substance then that make advaita dualistic, since there's A y B then a bridge between both is beeded , so a C is neede, and a bridge between C and A is needed thus D and so on and so on that's why you can't keep creating letters/substances because you end up in a lopp, that's why ontologiclly
>Brahman is the only one that actually and truly exists
then only A it's possible, making your supoused B factor useless and contradictory
but if only A exist then this reality can't be expalined since the onlythign that exist is unchangign uncausation
thus yoru whole system is logically contradictory
>the false is directly projected by a power inhering in Brahman
again, uncausation by deffinition can be the cause of antthign, so this is also contradictory, non causation can't project causation, it can't be part of no causation to create or project causation, at least if you don't wanna break the NCL

[Anonymous No.19572232]

>>19572094
>That it’s binomial doesn’t entail any logical contradiction in not assigning mithya to either one and instead holding it as belonging to a 3rd category
there can't be a third category in a binomial system, that's why is binomial, guenonfag please read a logic book

[Anonymous No.19572239]

>>19572056
>Brahman is acausal and just projects the false semblance of causality
then how causality is created?

[Anonymous No.19572253]

>>19572056
>“Brahman acausally projecting the false semblance of something while remaining alone as the only truly existent thing”
so brahmanprject uncauality, but that uncausality creates causality, so brahman by projecting that is CAUSING causality to emerge, making non causation the first cause of causation

[Anonymous No.19572254]

>>19571757
>without having any serious answer for why is there the appearance of it in the first place
"Phenomena are god's dandruff" is not a good answer, sorry.

[Anonymous No.19572422]

>>19572239
There isn't any. Causality isn't real. The Buddha asks the question
>If you propose that two things exist in such a manner that they are discrete, unchanging, and compositionally uniform, how do you propose that they could ever "do" anything to each other, and if so, how could they ever do anything else to each other other than what they "do" to each other?
(This is also asked by numerous Greeks, such as Zeno who used his Paradoxes to defend Parmenides)

Shankara's answer is the mathematically trivial one: there aren't two things, there's just one thing, and that thing is Brahman. Everything else doesn't exist. It's an illusion made out of nothing. All things except Brahman do not exist. This includes any kind of activity other than the one thing that Brahman does, ceaselessy, which is be aware of itself. It never does anything else, it never has, it never will, and it can't stop. Because this self-awareness is reflexive, it actually can't do this to anything else (not that there's anything for it to be aware of other than itself).

If you think that this is extreme, then you're in good company, because the rest of the Hindu intellectual world immediately jumped on Shankara for being a nihilistic atheist. The end result is the two major philosophical schools of India, Vishishadvaita Vedanta ("Qualified Non-Dualism") and Dvaita Vedanta ("Dualism"). The tl;dr between these two is whether Vishnu is the body AND spirit of the universe (Vishishadvaita Vedanta) or just the spirit of the universe (Dvaita Vedanta).

[Anonymous No.19573394]

>>19572056
>you sophist:
lol you're the one saying that brahman/non causality projects casuality, but for some reason that's not a form of causation, you trying to use word like nature or projection to avoid the obvious noton that projectin someting is a formof causation, it's like saying that if i throw a ball at your face it's not me hiting you but the ball, it wa sjust on my nature to project the ball at you
you'r etrying to ease your way out of your own paradox by using(bad) semantics, that's themost pure form of sophism

[Anonymous No.19573878]

>>19572048
>Saying “mithya” is not A (real existence) is not saying that mithya is the negation of A (i.e. -A).

1) if you propose B then yo uhave A y B making advaita dualistic systems, since there's two substances(or more)
2)if B quality is that A=-A that is,B is not reality(A) or non reality(-A), then B qualities are a contradiction

so by your own logic advaitia is not only breaking the NCL but it's also dualistic

[Anonymous No.19573956]

>>19571010
>>19572048

saying that someting is neithe real nor unreal is like saying that someting can be neither human nor un-human, doesn't make any sense

[Anonymous No.19575069]

>>19563682
look into taoism instead

[Anonymous No.19575709]

Here's a superior chart