Buddhist literature

[Anonymous No.22187543]

Nagarjuna's mulamadhyamakakarika, Vigrahavyavartani and sunyatasaptati are closer to early Buddhist teachings eg atthakavagga or than any Theravada additions like that of Buddhaghosa or the Abhidhamma OR any mahayanist additions like dharmakaya or bodhisattva vows.

In fact you find the exact same tetralemma/catuskoti used in the Pali canon by the Buddha himself (agnivaccagotta sutta and malunkya sutta).

>But Nagarjuna is a mahayanist
There is literally only one Mahayana reference in his corpus which is a line praising amitabha Buddha at the end of the suhrlekha - I'd put actual money on this being a later addition.
>But Buddha wasn't a sceptic
Yes that's too blunt of a way of understanding it. read the atthakavagga and the kaccanagotta sutta.
The issue is not that we don't know if things exist or not, it's that we can see through analysis that they are actually indeterminate, therefore we see the limitations of conventional truth and how ultimate truth apparently surpasses intellect, understanding this, we don't take up conventional views with any seriousness

>But Sañjaya Belaṭṭhaputta the sceptic is said to be a numbskull
That's because he just says he doesn't know anything. This Is quite different to seeing that conventional truth is limited through negations.

Tl;Dr: all phenomena (dhammas) and entities (puggalas) are conditionally dependent (paticcasamupada) and therefore empty (sunnata) and this is the core of the Buddha's teaching on the nature of the world.

[Anonymous No.22187547]

>>22187543
Advaita is the true expression of Buddhism

[Anonymous No.22187550]

>>22187547
Advaita takes the emptiness and reifies it as Brahman. Nagarjuna says this is the most dangerous thing you can do and Aryadev compares it to going to a shop with empty shelves to ask if you can buy some emptiness

[Anonymous No.22187556]

>>22187543
Retard here, can you please just nane all the books needed to learn authentic Buddhism? Western buddhism is nonsense but looking even in East, there seems to be multiple sects with different opinions. What to do learn the authentic one?

[Anonymous No.22187558]

>>22187543
>In fact you find the exact same tetralemma/catuskoti used in the Pali canon by the Buddha himself (fire analogy of nirvana sutta and malunkya sutta).
that's false. Logic is useless in buddhism and the tetralemma is only in hinduism, jainism and whatever garbage mahayana is. Using logic prevents those people to get fully enlightened by the way.


>Nagarjuna's mulamadhyamakakarika, Vigrahavyavartani and sunyatasaptati are closer to early Buddhist teachings eg atthakavagga or than any Theravada additions like that of Buddhaghosa or the Abhidhamma OR any mahayanist additions like dharmakaya or bodhisattva vows.
False.
Nagarjuna claims that arahants are not fully enlightened, whereas the Buddha claims that arahants are fully enlightened.
And the Buddha says he is an arahant himself by the way.
Nagarjuna's diarrhea claims that karma is not born from condition, whereas the Buddha claims that karma is born from conditions.


why mahayanists can't be honest intellectually.
Why do they need to cling to t their vicious narrative, self aggrandizing, and narcissistic.
Why can't they acknowledge that their preaching is just not the one of the buddha?
Why do they crave for passing as buddhists and seethe as soon they are told they are full of it and they were even kicked out of Sri lanka thousands of years ago exactly for this?

[Anonymous No.22187559]

>>22187556
>>22187556
you want the suttas, especially the SN ones fro the redpill
https://americanmonk.org/free-pts-sutta-ebooks/
you can read all this in 1 month if you are neet, otherwise jsut do this :
take 1h to read that and you'll be up to date and know more than 99% of the alleged buddhists :

>start
https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/MN/MN19.html
https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/AN/AN6_63.html
>middle
https://suttacentral.net/mn148/en/sujato
https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/SN/SN12_51.html
https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/AN/AN11_1.html
>finish
https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/SN/SN54_8.html


speed learning about buddhism with videos
-the redpill which is the ajahn brahm teaching for monks
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtnuVoJXWhM&list=PLQ_Y6m62B_MVZVGIzfjqrpoUmszVMcxWV
-then work slowly with the soft pill which is the retreat for lay people, so watch the other ones here (watch the QA too)
https://www.youtube.com/c/AjahnBrahmRetreats2011-15BSWAMedia/playlists

[Anonymous No.22187562]

>>22187556
>muh authenticity
ok protestant

[Anonymous No.22187571]

>>22187558
>that's false
It's literally true though it's in those Pali texts.
>Logic prevents
Buddha had expedient and ultimate teachings.
At different stages you teach different things.
>Nagarjuna claims that arahants are not fully enlightened, whereas the Buddha claims that arahants are fully enlightened.
Citation? I've never read this anywhere in his corpus.
>Nagarjuna's diarrhea claims that karma is not born from condition
Ummm sweaty naga says everything is born from conditions including kamma

>Mahayana
But I just said naga probably wasn't a mahayanist

[Anonymous No.22187577]

>>22187562
What is the point if they are not Buddha's teachings?

[Anonymous No.22187580]

>>22187550
this

also a refutation from the theravada tradition
https://sujato.wordpress.com/2011/05/13/vinna%E1%B9%87a-is-not-nibbana-really-it-just-isn%E2%80%99t/

[Anonymous No.22187608]

>>22187556
Dhammachakkavatana sutta
Anatta sutta
Udana
Atthakavagga
Agnivaccagotta sutta
Kaccanagotta sutta
Kalama sutta
Malunkya sutta
Satipatthana sutta

Yuttadhammo's how to meditate
Naga's mmk
Naga's 70

[Anonymous No.22187647]

>>22187577
What's the point if they are?

[Anonymous No.22187674]

>>22187543
>keeps posting the same fucking thread

[Anonymous No.22187735]

Based thread

[Anonymous No.22187748]

>>22187550
>Advaita takes the emptiness and reifies it as Brahman
No they don't, Advaitins say that Brahmin is a self-sufficient, metaphysically-independent and sentient entity, that has nothing whatsoever to do with emptiness (absence of inherent existence) but is more like its opposite, stop letting Advaita live rent-free in your head

[Anonymous No.22187915]

Early Buddhism also has seeds of Yogacara in it, but w/e.

As a practicing Buddhist I find it really off putting seeing folks factionalize the vehicles this hard. A lot of recent converts to Theravada seems to be going through some kind of cage stage BS. Archaeology shows the earliest Mahayana practitioners we have evidence for were in the same monasteries as more "orthodox" lines.

Anyway, some stuff I've been reading the last few years:

>Samten Migdron
>The Boddhisattva Path to Unsurpassed Enlightenment
>Jnana Consciousness
>Buddhist Magic: Divination, Healing, and Enchantment
>Sharp Practice
>Kurukulla
>Bo and Bon
>Lion's Roar of Shentong

Dr. Esler who translated Samten Migdron also has a new volume out from Brill that's a Dzogchen commentary called Effortless Spontaneity that hasn't made it to pdf yet that I'd like to check out.

>>22187556
The Pali Canon is really all you need.

>>22187674
See my first comment.

>>22187748
This, tbqh.
Which, incidentally, is why I went full blown Tantra.

[Anonymous No.22187925]

>>22187915
>Effortless Spontaneity that hasn't made it to pdf yet
Just did, it looks like.
Nice.

[Anonymous No.22188553]

bump

[Anonymous No.22188562]

>>22187915
>See my first comment.
what the fuck are you talking about

[Anonymous No.22189031]

>>22187748
Gaudapada just copies stuff out of the mmk verbatim and uses this to justify muh brahman.

[Anonymous No.22189061]

>>22187556
Doctrine of Awakening and skip or skim the first couple chapters on Evola's interpretation of Buddhism and its relation to Vedanta, unless you find them interesting. But just get to his interpretation of askesis itself, which is a good primer for reading the suttas yourself. Also start studying neoplatonism since they converge.

Also read Greek Buddha and The Shape of Ancient Thought.

All of this is just grist for the mill, just to get you to be able to visualize the sheer first-personality of theravada askesis in a way that doesn't reify any doctrines or schools, or even more dangerously, any "methods" or "proofs" of shit like sunyata. EVERYTHING has to serve and supplement the fundamental WORK you have to do. For some people the realization of the nature of the work will be revealed by reading a single sutta. For others it only comes after years of studying Buddhism scholastically and realizing that you can literally spend lifetimes studying Buddhism scholastically and never actually practice Buddhism. That's why I recommend these unorthodox and very stark and direct and minimalistically pro-theravada books that provide openings onto askesis for a western mind, like even Beckwith's interpretation of Pyrrho as a Buddhist.

[Anonymous No.22189065]

>>22187543
How the fuck can accept that everything is conditioned and interdependent, and still believe that salvation is possible? I think Nagarjuna was right about dependent origination but to say you can get “enlightened” is just a stupid meme only invented because Buddha still had to be a mendicant even after realizing all the ascetic shit is bullshit because it was his way of living.

[Anonymous No.22189070]

>>22189061
> Also start studying neoplatonism since they converge.
You’re a moron. Neoplatonism and Buddhism have nothing in common except karma and reincarnation.

[Anonymous No.22189078]

>>22189070
I'm sorry you feel that way. I recommend reading Plotinus. Uzdavinys has a good selection of the Enneads and the best edition is the one edited by Gerson but the older MacKenna one is good too if you can get that for cheap. I would say more but I do not think you understand the obvious similarities between platonic/neoplatonic negative theology, for example in the 7th letter, and Buddhism, and I'd need some more proof that you've read some Plato before talking to you about it.

In general though you don't need to call people morons the instant you slightly disagree with them.

[Anonymous No.22189091]

>>22188562
>>22187915
>As a practicing Buddhist I find it really off putting seeing folks factionalize the vehicles this hard.

>>22189065
I think your problem is you're importing an Abrahamic soteriology to a system that is utterly devoid of one.

[Anonymous No.22189099]

>>22189078
I’ve read Plotinus and Proclus. Buddhism doesn’t have “the good” or the belief that the one is the good. Its purity ethics are different from neoplatonism’s because it doesn’t involve purifying soul of body. Separating soul from body is pretty much the fundamental teaching of neoplatonism and buddhism doesn’t even teach that the soul exists. There’s no reason to think that buddhism’s “neither in existence or non existence” shit is in any way similar to neoplatonist apophatic theology. Beauty plays a fundamental role in neoplatonism, but clinging to beauty would be seen as a bad thing in neoplatonism. The Buddha becomes enlightened while in a body, but in neoplatonism you don’t get anything close to nirvana until your soul has gone through the realm of daemons and of gods, which are incorporeal. I could go on and on.

[Anonymous No.22189110]

>>22189091
> I think your problem is you're importing an Abrahamic soteriology
Does buddhism teach that you’ll leave the cycle of rebirth or not? If Nirvana literally just meant “stop desiring” then I could see that happening, but it’s supposed to be “salvation” which is obviously impossible according to Buddhism’s own rules.

[Anonymous No.22189111]

>>22189065
Agnivaccagotta sutta explains why nirvana is hard to understand

Naga: samsara is the same as nirvana.

[Anonymous No.22189118]

>>22189099
> bad thing in neoplatonism
In Buddhism*

[Anonymous No.22189120]

>>22189091
>>As a practicing Buddhist I find it really off putting seeing folks factionalize the vehicles this hard.

Op here
I'm not factionalising. Early Buddhism is something common to Theravada and Mahayana. But both have outgrowths not in common namely Abhidhamma and all the Bodhisattas are greater than arahatas talk.
We should ecumenically return to early Buddhism as per sunnata doctrine, as per the atthakavagga, as per the sutta nikaya

[Anonymous No.22189123]

>>22189110
Ignorance is the root of conditioned genesis.

[Anonymous No.22189132]

>>22189123
So if I realize that everything is dependently originated, there won’t be any more dependent origination? That doesn’t make any sense.

[Anonymous No.22189156]

>>22189132
It's beyond existence and nonexistence, both and neither.

Ignorance is taking one of the four extremes.

With ignorance comes conditioned arising of all phenomena.
With the cessation of ignorance comes the cessation of all phenomena

[Anonymous No.22189187]

>>22189110
It sure does but the discourse is generally around Liberation or Snuffing Out, not Salvation.

>if Nirvana literally just meant “stop desiring”
This is a complex topic inside its own traditions, generally what we're denoting is conquest of the aggregates (insomuch as that is possible w/r/t not forming new sankharas). But there's also the transmundane. Idk I feel like there's some weird Western tension with Eastern concepts of death and how this all interrelates. Even though I'm yoked to the Bodhisattva Vow I really don't think about further incarnations because I understand that my inevitable demise is on a few short precious years away and I need to bust my fuckin' ass on the Path if I'm going to make any progress on fulfilling the temporal obligations of that Oath. I'm not thinking about next lives (other than attempting to maintain auspicious conditions) or past lives because this is the only one I have immediate access to and the goal, hopefully, is to Liberate inside this lifetime. Not next one. Not in ten or ten thousand. Not in the Pure Abodes, despite aspiring to glimpse them should my time be up before I'm done with my Work.

Here and now.

>>22189120
Huh.
Interesting.
The OP formatting is, uh, kinda standoffish. I only hear "Mahayanist", usually, from detractors.

[Anonymous No.22189203]

>>22189187
>The OP formatting is, uh, kinda standoffish. I only hear "Mahayanist", usually, from detractors.
People accuse Nagarjuna of being Mahayana and automatically reject him for stuff that later mahayanist teach, even though his teachings can be found in the sutta nikaya.

I mean his most important work is a commentary on kaccanagotta sutta.
There's no pureland, boddhisatta, tantra in anything he teaches.
He rails against Abhidhamma sure, but even many Theravada momks question the validity of the Abhidhamma.

[Anonymous No.22189207]

>>22189031
> Gaudapada just copies stuff out of the mmk verbatim and uses this to justify muh brahman.
That’s also incorrect, there are a few passages that are verbally similar but in those passages Gaudapada is expressing a totally different philosophical concept than Nagarjuna so it makes no sense to say anything is “stolen”. Gaudapada is talking about an independent reality projecting a false illusion of samsara while that reality (Brahman) is not reducible to samsara and he is saying this projected illusion is never really born or created but is a beginningless image. This is opposed to Nagarjuna’s philosophical position, and Gaudapada first sources this from the Upanishads and cites the verses that talk about it and the additional verses that supplement this afterwards with logic are just elaborating on an Upanishadic notion. Nagarjuna didn’t write about a metaphysically independent and non-empty reality that is ontologically above samsara. Brahman is already justified by the Upanishads and Gaudapada doesn’t need or use anything else from any other source to justify Brahman.

[The Ape of !Th0tH..7io No.22189218]

>>22189203
>People accuse Nagarjuna
I've read Kalupahana's Mulamadhyamakakarika too, you know, and I agree with him. I just don't think it means what folks tend to think it does.

This is all One Vehicle.

[Anonymous No.22189219]

>>22189207
>there are a few passages that are verbally similar
Cope

Advaitins start with the same premise as the 2 truth doctrine, they refute conventional reality but instead of seeing the sunnata in this, they just retrofit Brahman on top of it

[Anonymous No.22189243]

>>22189218
I didn't even get that from Kalupahana. I just read the mmk, sunyatasaptati, vigrahyavartani and the suhrlekha and found all the references and the thrist of what he was saying all roots back entirely to the sutta nikaya.

The heart sutra is similar to Nagarjuna but reads more like a post hoc dramatisation of a Bodhisattva teaching Sariputta (to denigrate arahants) the same stuff Nagarjuna taught, but Naga's own corpus doesn't even mention Bodhisattvas

[The Ape of !Th0tH..7io No.22189257]

>>22189243
I don't need Nagarjuna to mention Bodhisattvas if Vajrapani, the Bodhisattva of Power, is introduced in Ambattha Sutta.

[Anonymous No.22189304]

>>22189219
> Cope
No, it’s just true, he is talking about another idea entirely. I doubt that you’ve even read his whole Karika.
>Advaitins start with the same premise as the 2 truth doctrine, they refute conventional reality
The notion of a higher reality above illusion is already talked about in practically every single Upanishad, and some of them are explicit in calling the higher reality an absolute knowledge and lower realm of illusion a lower knowledge. Even the pre-Buddhist Upanishads talk about changing things being unreal and say that there is a sole unchanging reality that falsely appears as plurality and change. You don’t need anything from Buddhism to get this from the Upanishads but all you have to do is read them literally or at their word when they say this stuff, and Gaudapada does do this and he cites the verses that say so. The few passages that appear similar to Nagarjuna in Gaudapada’s Karika are only using reason to caution against interpreting these passages as figurative or fanciful as opposed to taking them literally by pointing out that not only is it going against the text but it also makes less sense. There isn’t a single logical argument that Nagarjuna uses which Gaudapada depends on.

[Anonymous No.22190129]

>>22187547
>>22187550
>>22189031
>>22189219
"Gaudapada here affirms the possibility of intuiting reality beyond all veiling and thus attain an all comprehensive vision in contrast with the self-stultifying desperate negation of all things by means of the critical intellect.
[...]

In a word, his (Nagarjuna) is a supra-mental philosophy failing to see anything positive, negative or even neutral which can be rightly characterized as the essence of things. He considers it only proper to suspend his judgement in the matter. The means of approach, as I have said before, is reason (yukti) aided by intuition (anubhava) of the three states (avasthatraya) on the one side (Vedanta), and critical reason restricted to the waking state on the other (Madhyamaka)." - Mandukya Rahasya Vivrt, SSS

https://archive.org/details/Sachidanandendra_Swamiji_-_Maandukya_Rahasya_Vivrutti/page/n13/mode/2up

[The Ape of !Th0tH..7io No.22190231]

>>22190129
Is this view, though, not a function of how Buddhism deals with Vedana rather than a "self stultifying desperation to negate all things by means of the critical intellect"? I mean I'm a nondual tantrik over here who practices in both Saivist and Buddhist veins, and I really think that the majority of these polemics are intentionally and rhetorically speaking past each other.

More importantly and perhaps my biggest snag for Advaita; what does a proper nondualist have to do with any of these notions of pure or impure? It is neither and both simultaneously. If all things are of the raw Consciousness of Ishvara, what use is there for conventional distinction other than as a way to mitigate against the parts we desire to not confront?

Nagarjuna doesn't fail to see anything positive or negative, he knows, rather, that these are response valences to raw phenomena that tend toward highly disordered.

[Anonymous No.22190732]

>>22187915
any good recomendation on Yogacara texts? i know next to nothing about the yogacara system(just read some things about vashubandu) but seems a great philosophical system

[Anonymous No.22190744]

>>22190231
based non-dual post

[The Ape of !Th0tH..7io No.22190764]

>>22190732
I...disagree; I'm Vajrayana for a reason.

There's overlaps with some concepts in Yogacara and Early Buddhism that Jnana Consciousness in that list touches on. Bodhisattva Path that I mention in that post is properly "Bodhisattvabhumi Shastra" which itself is a component of "Yogacarabhumi Shastra" but I have a lot of quibbles with the overarching Yogacara program and Vajrayana was, in part, a conscious walkback of some of the worst Yogacara excesses back to firm Madhyamaka footing, plus tantra proper, Dzogchen, etc. Still, Bodhisattvabhumi Shastra is a solid later Mahayana text with little of the philosophy lots of folks grumble about and will give you excellent context for how tantra crystallized. Its an EXCELLENT outline for how the Bodhisattva path, ideally, unfolds.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yog%C4%81c%C4%81rabh%C5%ABmi-%C5%9A%C4%81stra#12_-_Bodhisattvabh%C5%ABmi

[Anonymous No.22190777]

>>22190764

thanks anon! i will check it out

[Anonymous No.22190876]

>>22189218
Ok where are amitabha and avalokitesvara mentioned

Also vajrapani is a yaksha, can yakshas even become enlightened? I thought only humans were correctly poised?

[Anonymous No.22190886]

>>22190231
>what does a proper nondualist have to do with any of these notions of pure or impure?
It's not a value judgement but is only used by Advaita in the context of describing whether the thing to which it is being applied is either mixed with other things or is free of admixture.
>>22190129
This quote is misleading because the part about "two means of approaches" implies that from a Shankaran perspective that "critical reason restricted to the waking state" is another approach to the same thing as Advaita, but Shankara clearly expresses his disagreement with this, and in fact he rejects critical reason applied to anything whatsoever as an approach and not just to the waking state. Reasoning is only a preliminary and optional device which 'clears the ground' just like Vedic rituals and prayer are. "Reason aided by intuition of the three states" is the modernist invention of SSS and Shankara does not say that it is the main approach anywhere. I have read all of his indubitably authentic works and can personally attest to the fact that he never says this once anywhere.
>>22190231
>If all things are of the raw Consciousness of Ishvara,
In Advaita they aren't except indirectly, like how the reflection of a moon in water is 'of the' moon

[The Ape of !Th0tH..7io No.22190956]

>>22190876
>Ok where are amitabha and avalokitesvara mentioned
I don't think they are.

>I thought only humans were correctly poised?
I've never actually seen full clarity on this; some Yakshas appear to have the capacity but this doesn't appear universal. The Pali seems to make clear that its not that a God can't Enlighten, just that it is difficult to because of their conditions. DN 32 has Devas already subject to vow/conversion, which means they're striving towards Liberation and if we put any weight behind classifications that are just a tick older some later materials classify Yakshas as not just subordinate to but of the same class of Devas as the Wisdom Kings then I think its not entirely out of the question. Especially if the Blessed One evokes them. Hell, DN 16 has Sakra reciting the Dharma in praise of Buddha on his final extinction. That doesn't, to my ear, sound like an Entity incapable of Liberation.

[The Ape of !Th0tH..7io No.22190961]

>>22190956
>Wisdom
Heavenly, pardon.

[Anonymous No.22190982]

>the self doesn’t exist
>um actually you need enlightenment because your self will be reborn and that’s bad
And yes I know the Buddhist response is that it’s not my-self that’s reborn but some causal chain of karma. But why should I care about future rebirths if it’s not myself? I, as in my identity, is extinguished either way.

[Anonymous No.22191025]

>>22190982
>But why should I care about future rebirths if it’s not myself?
you don't need to care about future lifes to practice the path, suffering is already present and the conditons to be free from it already avaible to you, buddha himself teach that you shouldn't care about your past and future lifes since that would only lead you to more neurosis

[Anonymous No.22191049]

>>22190982
Buddhism doesn't teach rebirth
See: Ven. Buddhadasa

[Anonymous No.22191184]

>>22189218
Yeah you're an idiot for clinging to anime buddhism.

[Anonymous No.22191186]

>>22189203
>People accuse Nagarjuna of being Mahayana and automatically reject him for stuff that later mahayanist teach, even though his teachings can be found in the sutta nikaya.
No, the bhumis the idiot Nagarjuna invented are not in the suttas.

[Anonymous No.22191190]

>>22189120
It's really weird how people can't stop bastardizing buddhism. And those people can't explain their motivation to trash buddhism but at the same time to pass their crap as le true buddhism.
You want to create your won cult? Fine, but why do crave for labeling it buddhism?

[Anonymous No.22191192]

>>22189207
>Brahman is already justified by the Upanishads
Completely false. The Upanishads are dogmatic.

[Anonymous No.22191486]

>>22191186
>the bhumis the idiot Nagarjuna invented
he didn't, the bhumis were already articulated in the Daśabhūmika Sūtra, there's a commentary that may be written by Nagarjuna, but the this sutra existed 100 years before AryaNagarjuna
second even if he created the system that's common, all buddhist philosophers create new way to understand the path, Vashubandu, the abidharmakas and many more did the same, there's nothing in the bhumis that contradict the buddhadhamma, the gradual path is one of the first teachings of the thatagata

[Anonymous No.22191530]

>>22191190
Baseless accusations. My entire speel is cited from Pali canon suttas that also exist in Mahayana recension
>>22191186
>Mahayanist bleating about some non sutta stuff
Come back to me with either Sanskrit agama quotes or Pali sutta pitaka.

Naga doesn't talk about Bhumis or Buddhafields or whatever. He talks about paticcasamupada.

[Anonymous No.22191572]

>>22190886
no at all
after dealing with all the opponent's doctrines (buddhists realists and idealists, samkhyans, and so on) and before commenting on the 87 karika of gaudapada's alatashanti, Shankara says: "now the following text shows OUR OWN WAY of arriving at the Truth"(gambhirananda) or "Now the following topic is introduced as an explanation of the Vedāntic method of arriving at truth."(nikhilananda) and he starts the proper avasthatraya vichara.
You're a retarded if you think that shankara's advaita is a mere play of words or a logical game, he says over and over that the goal is to recognize the Absolute as your own Self, this is done by means of anvaya-vyatireka, pancakosha and avasthatraya vicara, which are the means to determine the meaning of "tvam/aham" and understand the mahavakyas properly. So it has NOTHING to do with any modernism whatsoever.

and this (avasthatraya-vicara) is also an exclusive doctrine of advaita vedanta, although other darshanas investigate other states they all do with preconceptions and not with the objective of determining the metaphysical Reality. its very different from gaudapada and shankara's approach.
The fact that this method is applied everywhere (from the karikas to suresvara's naishkarmya siddhi and the post shankara advaitins) shows the importance thereof.

If you have read everything by Shankara and haven't grasped this you just wasted your time.

[The Ape of !Th0tH..7io No.22191579]

>>22191486
>there's nothing in the bhumis that contradict the buddhadhamma
This. And everyone likes to quietly not mention that the Paramitas are clearly enumerated in the late canon (and if that's too far a bridge, each get addressed on an individual basis in the earlier Collections so idk why anyone would have a gripe with someone recompiling them in a single text).

>>22191184
Mate for a purely mechanistic and non anime religion I see a LOT of spirit interactions in the Pali Canon. Shit the reason we have a Pali Canon to discuss in the first place is because Brahma climbed down out of Deva Paradise to beg the Blessed One go fuckin' preach when his first thought was "these insights are too subtle to articulate, and to teach would be profanity". Like, the first acts, and therefore teachings, of the Blessed One upon Liberation are "Keep silent about profound insights" and "Heed the earnest good counsel of spirits". Proclaiming the Dharma to the world was third on his list after "shut the fuck up Friday" and "chat with God".

[The Ape of !Th0tH..7io No.22191588]

>>22191572
>If you have read everything by Shankara and haven't grasped this you just wasted your time.
Despite my aforementioned gripes I'm still, for the most part, a Shankara stan, and I gotta tell you, this is not, as the kids say, "it" famalam.

If we approach these discussions with too much factionalism they're going to look like any given polemic from 800-1100 and if anyone wanted that we could just pull any one of those polemics from the shelf. We've made way, way, too much progress to walk ourselves back 900 years.

[Anonymous No.22191669]

Sila
Sattipathana
Sunyata

Simple as. No need for anythinh else.
At most just bowing before the Buddha and doing daily recitation of the triple gem, precepts

[The Ape of !Th0tH..7io No.22191673]

>>22191669
If there was no need for anything else, there would be nothing else. But yes that's like 3/5ths of a Tibetan preliminary and folks Liberate off that alone with fair regularity.

[Anonymous No.22191742]

>>22191673
And there is nothing else in theravada

[The Ape of !Th0tH..7io No.22191748]

>>22191742
That's...kind of a stretch but ok.

[Anonymous No.22191751]

>worship buddhajesus every day
>recite the special recipe for goodboypoints
>obey goodboy rules to get more goodboypoints and a chance to get to the buddhajesus heaven
nice "liberation" you got there lmao.
or is the liberation when you realize it's all just memery?

[Anonymous No.22191772]

>>22191748
Read the atthakavagga even daily recitations and sila is excessive if you get deep enough

[Anonymous No.22191779]

>>22191751
Two more rebirths trust the plan

[The Ape of !Th0tH..7io No.22191781]

>>22191772
I mean I'm a dzoghcen initiate, like, I get it.
But the point of 84000 teachings is that you can set the degree of complexity you need for your particular case.

Some folks have nasty fetters. It's not up to me to tell them how they should be wrestling with the angel, to shoplift a phrase. Some people need to sit down and shut up. Some people need to puzzle out the underlying meaning of divine sights and sounds. Neither is above or below the other, just different.

[Anonymous No.22191805]

Is Tsongkhapa any good? I hear he's the premier Tibetan philosopher. What's his relationship to Nagarjuna and Sunyavada?

[Anonymous No.22191818]

>>22191779
lol

[The Ape of !Th0tH..7io No.22191822]

>>22191805
>Is Tsongkhapa any good?
That's a really immense question and it skirts my Oaths but I don't feel like he is.
Like...he's free to elaborate and reform and do so earnestly and in good faith and I'm free to say "I'm not particularly convinced, mate".

>I hear he's the premier Tibetan philosopher
That's certainly a Gelug take. And he ~kind of~ is, again, I'm just not really a fan. This gets back to my gripes above about Yogacara; Gelug school goes HARD in on the "consciousness only" take which I find untenably solipsist. I can accept that the only way we interact with the external world is mediated through consciousness but "reality isn't real" is kind of where I gotta draw a line in the sand. The divide comes down to the fundamental nature of Emptiness. This whole debate has actually been the impetus for bloodshed over the last 400ish years. You can read more about the philosophical split here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rangtong_and_shentong

[Anonymous No.22191824]

>>22191781
Some people need to stop clinging to a moronic fantasy of the ''natural state of the mind''.
By the way the idiots in dzoghcen can't explain how ignorance arises from this primordial consciousness.

[Anonymous No.22191827]

>>22191781
Idek what dzongchen is lad.

Theravada with a sprinkle of sunyavada for me. Simplebas

[Anonymous No.22191841]

>>22191822
Thanks tripguy, I’ll read further.

I thought Tsongkhapa took a radically pro-emptiness view though, how is he an idealist like Yogacara then?

[The Ape of !Th0tH..7io No.22191842]

>>22191824
>By the way the idiots in dzoghcen can't explain how ignorance arises from this primordial consciousness
"Both ignorance and Ground, Vaccha, doesn't apply"
"Neither ignorance nor Ground, Vaccha, doesn't apply"

>>22191827
"Effortless/relaxed spontaneity" is the watchword. The actual title 'dzogchen' is "Great Perfection". Its, sorta, a very early Tibeto-Shamanic influenced third cousin to Chan. The early texts compare and contrast itself to Chan.

[The Ape of !Th0tH..7io No.22191851]

>>22191841
>pro-emptiness view though, how is he an idealist like Yogacara then?
It all boils back to "consciousness only".
If Sunyata is itself empty of self identity then we're looking at Void upon Void. It ends up looping back to a pure idealism, where all things "in reality" insomuch as reality can be said to exist, are convenient illusory fictions. Objects, exclusively, of consciousness, which is itself void on void. The philosophical position is vertiginously close to the kind of Nihilism the shitposters are always complaining about. It...doesn't do great things to your theology or culture, imho.

[Anonymous No.22191867]

>>22191572
>no at all
>Shankara says: "now the following text shows OUR OWN WAY of arriving at the Truth"(gambhirananda) or "Now the following topic is introduced as an explanation of the Vedāntic method of arriving at truth."(nikhilananda) and he starts the proper avasthatraya vichara.
In that passage he appears to just means that adopting the proper perspective or the proper conclusion about a matter (the 3 states), helps put one on the proper course to realizing the Self just like the Upanishadic sentences saying change are illusory also do so, it's not saying that analyzing the three states itself produces the total realization of the Self. This is a faulty way to interpret the text because it conflicts with his repeated statements elsewhere that raciocination or discursive thought and logic are incapable of revealing the Self, Simply knowing that the Self is the constant presence underlying the three states is not an end-all be-all of Self-realization because there is still the critical component of the teaching about the Self being misidentified with the Buddhi and vice-versa and if you don't understand this component of the teaching then you are liable to misidentify the Self as the subject or witness of waking experiences like SSS does, when it's only the buddhi being animated by the Self's light that actually witnesses objects.

Furthermore SSS distorts the text by identifying the supreme with the third state sleep and speaks as if Turiya is figurative while Shankara calls deep sleep an object of knowledge (which is opposed to the Self) in MK 4-88; and in MK 4-89 he writes about negating deep sleep to realize the Turiya that is beyond it.

>So it has NOTHING to do with any modernism whatsoever.
SSS's writings are heavily influenced by modernism and he misunderstands and distorts Gaudapada, he has been refuted by many traditional Vedantics, layperson scholars and also myself personally. The notion of having some unique and unchallengeable logical analysis that produces enlightenment is totally modernist.

[Anonymous No.22191916]

>>22191572
>>22191572
For another example of how the modernist idiot SSS misunderstand Gaudapada and Shankara, SSS claims that maya is NOT Brahman's power that projects samsara but this is explicitly refuted by Gaudapada and Shankara in MK 2-12 where Gaudapada and Shankara both describe maya as Brahman's own power through which samsara is projected. Furthermore Gaudapada says "this is the decision of the Vedanta"; SSS takes these kind of declarative statements about the tradition as justifying his hermeneutic but that falls apart when they are attached to statements like this that are directly opposed to his thesis

https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/mandukya-upanishad-karika-bhashya/d/doc143643.html

Gaudapada's MK 12: Ātman, the self-luminous, through the power of his own Māyā, imagines in himself by himself. He alone is the cognizer of the objects. This is the decision of the Vedānta.

Shankara's Bhashya: The self-luminous Ātman himself, by his own Māyā, imagines in himself the different objects, to be described hereafter

The Sanskrit word used by Gaudapada here is svamāyayā, a conjuction of 'sva' (own) and māyayā which is the instrumental case of māyā. Unless you think Gaudapada didn't understand Sanskrit it's clear from his use of the instrumental case that he is describing Brahman projecting samsara with maya as his power/instrument by which Brahman does so, which what the use of an instrumental case means in Sanskrit.

>See also the use of svamāyayā in GK 2.12, where the self is said to imagine the different forms like snake on rope. Note that the imagination is due to māyā since māyayā is the instrumental form of māyā. Thus māyā is not the “product” of the imagination, which may be equated with avidya. It is also clear from the fact that Sankaracarya comments ´that the self itself, after imagination through māyā, perceives the objects.' So māyā is not the product, but rather the cause (of samsara).

[Anonymous No.22191923]

>>22191851
I’m a nihilist though so this sounds philosophically appealing

[Anonymous No.22191927]

>>22187543
My reading list:
>Siddhartha
>The Light Of Asia
>Kazantzakis - Buddha
>The Doctrine Of Awakening
>Why Buddhism Is True
>In The Buddha’s Words
>The Lotus Sutra
>From Stone To Flesh

[Anonymous No.22191963]

>>22191851>>22191841

Yes you two made the mistake of using the word emptiness....
Lots of newcomers in Buddhism make this mistake, mostly due to their background.
The Buddha uses the word '' empty" of a self, ie anatta, way more frequently than ''emptiness''. If emptiness was the jewel of Buddhism, the frequencies would have been the opposite.

The jewel of his teaching is not emptiness applied to the universe, but anatta applied to the senses.

It's the same situation when he uses the word ''world'', ie the senses, and the buddha doesn't give a damn about the universe or the whole world or whatever.

And by the way not caring about the cosmos, universe, the whole world is precisely what salvages buddhism over the religions.

The whole point of the buddha is that you don't have burn all your karma, nor to care about the universe, nor find out where it comes from, nor gods and whatever made up myth by the normies and intellectuals and drug addicts, in order to end suffering.

[The Ape of !Th0tH..7io No.22192072]

>>22191963
>nor to care about the universe
How do you square this with the Eightfold Path?

[Anonymous No.22192254]

>>22187559
Where exactly do I start with readings? It just feels like there is an insurmountable amount to learn when it comes to Buddhism. I can hardly keep the Pali vocabulary straight, and even have a hard time pronouncing everything. The knowledge demonstrated here is very impressive, but I don't understand how I can even start to have discussions at this level (>>22187558).

I appreciate the seeming authenticity and austerity of Therevada, but I am also drawn to the aesthetics of Vajrayana. That said, the only Buddhist congretation in my area is Chan, with a small online only Therevada group as well (these all seem to be older, Jewish, laypeople, though). It seems to me that even if I learn anything it will come at the inability to practice in my area. Anyone else in a similar situation or have advice?

Thanks lads.

[The Ape of !Th0tH..7io No.22192265]

>>22192254
>It just feels like there is an insurmountable amount to learn when it comes to Buddhism
Bhikkhu Bodhi's shorter compilations of the Pali texts are rock solid and literally form the root each extant school. Picrel, there are a few. They're highly redacted but do cover the majority of my favorites.

[Anonymous No.22192279]

>>22192265
Thanks, Ape. I've purchased the first volume of this set and enjoyed it. Some others on /lit/ have expressed concern with Bhikku Bodhi, but perhaps that is misguided.

[The Ape of !Th0tH..7io No.22192280]

>>22192254
>Anyone else in a similar situation or have advice?
Also I'm always reluctant to say this because it leaves significant risk for unmoored self-teaching, but Lama Garchen Rinpoche has leaned HARD on digital empowerment and instruction over the course of the pandemic and might be singlehandedly tipping the scale with some support from HHDL.

Vajrayana starts with a preliminary; 100k refuge prayers, mandala offerings, prostrations, and guru recitations, each. Sometimes more if extensive. There are a dozen or so groups offering the Lung (blessing) that authorizes you to undertake the practice, which itself has a bajillino variations. Some of them aren't great, but Garchen is an extremely well regarded source to start with.

Even if you don't intend to follow through to sophisticated Tantrik practice, you will absolutely know if esoteric buddhism is for you after your first 100k refuge prayers. Even if esoteric buddhism ISN'T for you, if you walk into any Mahayana temple and say "yes I have completed a Tibetan preliminary" that should mark you out as an extremely serious student who has demonstrated proficiency with the requisite discipline and devotion.

[The Ape of !Th0tH..7io No.22192285]

>>22192279
>concern with Bhikku Bodhi
I have concerns with Bodhi too, but the books are head and shoulders above "fine". GOOD might be a stretch but unless you're shelling out for a Pali Text Society 5k edition of Everything, this and wisdomlibrary (or your preferred online vehicle for Pali texts, there are plenty) are what you have to work with.

[Anonymous No.22192287]

>>22187556
Read about how organised Buddhism devolved into medieval catholic church-tier power hungry institutions in multiple asian countries during the feudal period and how their control ran so deep that only a century ago nepalese monks still had indentured servants and to this day japs look down or Nobunaga for daring to tell a bunch of warrior monks to fuck off and fight them when they refused to do so.

[Anonymous No.22192305]

>>22187571
>>>Nagarjuna claims that arahants are not fully enlightened, whereas the Buddha claims that arahants are fully enlightened.
>Citation? I've never read this anywhere in his corpus.
You're piece of shit retard it's unbelievable how you dont even read Nagarjuna's diarrhea yourself.
Naga the retard says arahants are 6 bhumi tops, whereas the buddha says they are fully enlightened.

Nagarjuna says The buddha taught the great vehicles, which is lie.

Nagarjuna like all the hindus push for their 4 Brahma-viharas like compassion as the motivation for Bodhisattvas to get enlightened.
The buddha says the Brahma-viharas are not enough to get fully enlightened and not even required.

Nagarjuna claims emptiness is empty and claims it's the middle way of the Buddha. That's again a lie. The middle way of the buddha is not emptiness is empty.


Nagarunja starts with his dogma that the emptiness realized by the idiots following the greater vehicle is the same as the emptiness of the Hearer vehicle. Pro-tip: it's another lie.
Then he spends the rest of his book babbling about Bodhisattvas and how it's totally the teaching of the buddha. Protip: another lie.

Nagarjuna says that "What is the nature of the thus-gone one (the Buddha), that is the nature of the world."
The buddha never said this. The buddha said samsara is conditioned, not self and dukkha. Nirvana is not conditioned and not self and not dukkha.

Nagarjun claims:
There is not the slightest difference Between cyclic existence and nirvana.
There is not the slightest difference Between nirvana and cyclic existence.
The Buddha says otherwise.

At the end of the day Nagarjuna is brahmin who didn't understand a single line of the Buddha's teaching, he parrots basic Upanishads, yet couldn't resist to make up his own little sanskrit book and pass it as ''le real buddhism''.

[Anonymous No.22192310]

Every buddhist thread on this board is indiscernible from autists discussing Kingdom Hearts or Warhammer lore, with the difference being that those nerds don’t larp at being enlightened.

[The Ape of !Th0tH..7io No.22192314]

>>22192305
If your goal is to get anyone Advaita adjacent to drop their BS and pick up Adviata you're going super far out of your way to fuck it up.

If your proclamation of the sublime is less beautiful than this, pack it up and go home, you're not extoling Advaita, you're profaning Shankara: https://youtu.be/zZ_m7tgPcf4

[Anonymous No.22192371]

By the way here is the sutta that Nagarjuna completely fails to understand.

“This world, Kaccana, for the most part depends upon a duality—upon the notion of existence and the notion of nonexistence. But for one who sees the origin of the world as it really is with correct wisdom, there is no notion of nonexistence in regard to the world. And for one who sees the cessation of the world as it really is with correct wisdom, there is no notion of existence in regard to the world.
“This world, Kaccana, is for the most part shackled by engagement, clinging, and adherence. But this one with right view does not become engaged and cling through that engagement and clinging, mental standpoint, adherence, underlying tendency; he does not take a stand about ‘my self.’ He has no perplexity or doubt that what arises is only suffering arising, what ceases is only suffering ceasing. His knowledge about this is independent of others. It is in this way, Kaccana, that there is right view. “‘All exists’: Kaccana, this is one extreme. ‘All does not exist’: this is the second extreme. Without veering towards either of these extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma by the middle: ‘With ignorance as condition, volitional formations come to be; with volitional formations as condition, consciousness…. Such is the origin of this whole mass of suffering. But with the remainderless fading away and cessation of ignorance comes cessation of volitional formations; with the cessation of volitional formations, cessation of consciousness…. Such is the cessation of this whole mass of suffering.”

Here is the retard interpretation:
To say that things exist means grasping at their permanence;
To say they don't exist implies the notion of annihilation.
Thus the wise should not say
"this exists" or "this does not exist."

Something that exists by its intrinsic being,
Since it cannot not exist, is permanent.
To say that what once was is now no more
Entails annihilation.

[Anonymous No.22192725]

>>22191867
>>22191916
wrong again

first, he is very clear in the passage, don't try to twist it to fit into your preconceived views, he does not "appears to just means" anything, he clearly says that this is "our way of arriving at the truth"
second, the goal of the investigation of the avasthas is to recognize the unreality of the avasthas themselves and how the Self is untouched by them, the vicara does not "produce" anything new. To intuit the Self as Sakshi is obviously still an adhyaropa, everyone knows that, and SSS never said that the Saskhi is the final truth. stop spreading lies.

SSS never identified Turiya with any "third state".
Shankara said: "that which is called Prajna in its causal state will be recognized as Turiya in its Real aspect i.e non-causal".
Suresvara also says in NS: "when what is called sleep—tamas, ajñana, the seed of waking and dream—is burnt up by awakening to the nature of the Self, then it becomes void of progeny, like a seed that has been burnt"
So it's not "deep sleep" (as a state) that is Turiya, because when avidya gets sublated there's no more causality, so there's no more "deep sleep" (causal state with its bija, etc). There's only three avasthas to the ignorant who's deluded by adhyasa (and thinks "i am so and so, in the waking state and then will go to dream and deep sleep"), not to the jñani who's identified with the Absolute beyond any avastha and does not "go" anywhere.
So you can say that there are two ways of looking at the experience that is commonly (in common man's sense, adhyasika) called sushupti, (1)from an adhyaropita way (as a causal state) or (2)as its own svarupa (non-causal). Also, the brihadaranyaka and chandogya upanisads declare unambiguously the reality of the Self in whats called sushupti, and that the reason of not-knowing is not avidya but ekatva, Oneness. And most importantly, this is also our own intuition of "sleep", pure oneness; NO ONE ever saw any bija on one's own sleep.
Therefore,
1 - "sleep"(causal) is only available to the ignorant, avivekin, subjected to Adhyasa.
2 - To say deep sleep=Brahman, is not regarding what you (subject to adhyasa) calls sleep (because its no more a state)

SSS never denied Brahman having its power. Instead he just says (like Shankara) that its power is non-different from Brahman. And all that is OBVIOUSLY an adhyaropa, because any projection or manifestation is taught only to direct the attention of the student to Brahman, as the only material and efficient cause of the world (you can only talk about any cause of namarupa from namarupa's (conjured up by avidya) standpoint). His problem was with post-advaitins who regarded an imaginary Maya-Avidya-sakti as being the cause of the world, similar to the samkhyan position which is refuted by Sankara.

two words are applied to you though: dumbness or intellectual dishonesty. Probably the latter, because you're attacking strawmans, and spreading lies about Swami Satchidanandendra's position.

[Anonymous No.22192751]

>>22191867
>>22191916
your whole text is basically a strawman
you clearly haven't read a single work by Satchidanandnendra saraswati
you clearly have read Shankara, but didn't understand his intent and couldn't get beyond the words printed on paper

[Anonymous No.22192920]

>>22192725
> he does not "appears to just means" anything, he clearly says that this is "our way of arriving at the truth"
That can only mean a proper intellectual perspective/understanding, and not attainment of Brahman, since the latter is already attained always. Furthermore, there are countless other passages where Shankara talks about other kinds of metaphors, implications, hints being using to reveal Brahman; it is the gay modernist impulse that makes SSS seeks to ‘concretize’ one of these as being definitive, because he wants to make it like a western science with clearly defined steps. It’s arbitrary and thus faulty to seek to concretize any one of these statements and not the countless others that talk about other means and strategies, SSS is seeking to make Vedanta into a rationalism.

> To intuit the Self as Sakshi is obviously still an adhyaropa, everyone knows that, and SSS never said that the Saskhi is the final truth. stop spreading lies.
Show me one (1) passage where SSS clearly understands that the Self isn’t a witness, as far as Ive seen he doesnt clearly understand this

> that which is called Prajna in its causal state will be recognized as Turiya in its Real aspect i.e non-causal".
And? every single state is Turiya in its Real aspect, since Turiya is the fourth the pervades each; the ‘causal state’ of Prajna is only talking about avidya being present in causal seed form; Turiya is beyond this latent ignorance and is acausal in that sense but Brahman is never not the ultimate source of samsara

> SSS never denied Brahman having its power.
I have quotes the exact passage before where he denies then when arguing with his retarded cultists on 4chan; now you are lying

here is the passage where he denies this:

Brahman:

"All misconceptions about Shankara's Vedanta which impute to Brahman a power called Maya in virtue of which It manifests Itself as the universe, are therefore to be accounted for as being due to confounding of the two significations of "Shakti" and mistaking the Shakti or 'potential aspect of the universe of names and forms, for the power of Isvara'. It is this potency of names and forms that has been declared by Sankara to be a figment of avidya in the quotation cited above."
- Satchidanandendra, "Misconconceptions about Shankara", page 25

[Anonymous No.22192936]

Is there any Buddhist or Hindu apologetics? There is plenty of explanation of the doctrine but explaining why it is true seems absent

[Anonymous No.22192949]

>>22192936
>explaining why it is true seems absent
you've literally never read any of the literature

[Anonymous No.22192952]

>>22192949
wow you didn't even try just cope posted
0/10

[Anonymous No.22192960]

>>22187543

Shut the fuck up you fucking nerds. Why are you wasting so much time on this shit

[Anonymous No.22192968]

>>22192952
You couldn't have gotten very far if you did. Even perusing a single volume of the canonical sutras you would have found sectarian religious debates between the Buddhist writers and whatever rival Indian sect they are set up against. Or had you picked up a later Mahayana sutra it would be extolling the truth of its doctrines against both rival Buddhists and non-Buddhists. Or had you picked up an even later still Vajrayana tantra it would explain how everyone is an idiot except your guru. There has never been a more self-conscious missionary religion than Buddhism

[Anonymous No.22192997]

>>22192968
at best there is explanations of Buddhism to some random people and local practices or people holding a wrong views on a specific but a defense of Buddhism as a whole is absent

[Anonymous No.22193001]

>>22192725
>Instead he just says (like Shankara) that its power is non-different from Brahman. And all that is OBVIOUSLY an adhyaropa
This is more modernist garbage that SSS posits against Shankara’s doctrine, Shankara says in Brahma Sutra 1-4-3 that it has to be accepted as Brahman power and as the source of samsara because the alternative is logically untenable:

“But we understand this antecedent (not yet manifest) condition of the transitory world to be dependent on the Highest Lord and not independent in any way. It must necessarily be so understood, because it is only in this way that it can have any meaning, as without such supposition, the creative activity of the Highest Lord is not established. And in the absence of any such power inherent in the Highest Lord, neither his proceeding to create, nor the non-liability of those who have already attained Final Release to be born again, would be reasonably sustainable." - Shankara, BSSB 1-4-3

This refutes the modernist contention of SSS that its only adhyaropa; because Shankara says that if it is denied then the idea of the non-liability of return to samsara of those liberated is not tenable; this is because if it can spring up on its own then there is no rhyme or reason stopping it from entrapping those liberated again; furthermore he says there would be no creation/projection at all and obviously there would be no experience of samsara at all then. This means it cannot be adhyaropa, because that results in this being denied which Shankara says results in these illogical conclusions; if what you are saying is really position it would make no sense for him to provide arguments that undermine his own final position like that, especially when its not something said in a text he is commenting on but he is choosing to add that argument on his own entirely because of his choosing because he thinks its important. That explicitly refutes the main thesis of SSS, period.

SSS is unironically closer to Samkhya because he posits that samsara appears/happens on its own, just like pradhana generates the world on its own without any intelligent principle directing it in Samkhya.

[Anonymous No.22193013]

>>22192997
>a defense of Buddhism as a whole is absent
What does that even mean? Many sutras argue for what they advocate in some way. Certainly the shastra/treatise literature does attempt to explain why the view offered is the most correct one as well. It's a very different presentation than the Bible or the Koran, even when appeals to authority are presented.

[Anonymous No.22193043]

>>22193013
>What does that even mean?
an apologetic work of Buddhism not then explaining the doctrine against some unknown indian cultural practice like the Buddha did with the extreme aesthetics

[Anonymous No.22193070]

>>22193043
What do you think Christian apologists did when they argued against some unknown Hellenistic cultural practice? Or the modern ones who complain about science/secularism/atheism? That's what apologia is, it doesn't exist outside of its context.

[Anonymous No.22193080]

>>22187543
But let me get this straight: Amithaba Buddha exists and I will still go to His Pure Land after death, right. ;)

[Anonymous No.22193083]

>>22192997
Buddhists have spent thousands of years debating all-comers of every religion about the Dharma. In 19th century Sri Lanka Christian missionaries were BTFOed so hard by Theravadin monks in public debates such as the Panadura Debate that Christianity ceased to be a force on the island.

[Anonymous No.22193666]

>>22192920
>>22193001

I didn't say that you "attain Brahman" by means of avasthatraya nor that it's the only method. But tell me how do you sublate the apparent reality of the waking state without the avasthatraya?

The Absolute as a Witness or Substratum(adhisthanam) is an adhyaropa present in shruti, smrti and in Shankara's bhashyas. What's the problem? Being an adhyaropa it will be denied (apavada) later on.

In the passage by SSS that you quoted it's very clear that by Maya here he is referring to the post-advaitins Maya/Avidya-Shakti which they regard (contrary to Shankara) as being the cause of adhyasa and the world. You have to understand that he never denied the Shakti of Brahman, but that this is an adhyaropa, and Shankara clearly says that all this is avidya-kalpita, due to avidya; so this is only accountable in the vyavaharika standpoint where you deal with ideas such as creation and so on. But this Shakti is in no way the cause of adhyasa, Shankara never said this. The "cause" of adhyasa is simply not-knowing (aviveka). Then due to adhyasa everything follows: me, as an individual, subject-object, the world and it's cause (Brahman) with it's power (shakti), all duality, etc. But those are all unsubstantial, they have no ontological reality whatsoever, being only superimpositions; Reality is One.
"Hence perception and the other means of right knowledge, and the Vedic texts have for their object that which is dependent on Nescience."(adhyasabhashya)

I already said to you that SSSS does not deny Brahman (and it's Power, non-different from Him) being the source of nama-rupa (this is EXACTLY his point. he's advocating exactly for this position against the post-advaitins who regarded some unconscious Avidya-Shakti as being the cause, instead of the conscious Brahman. So its the post-advaitins that are closer to Samkhyans, not SSS).
But you have to understand that there's no world independent of Adhyasa. All ideas of jivas returning to samsara or the springing up of the world are obviously due to Adhyasa, I have to consider myself as an individual "first". It's an adhyaropa, because ultimately there's no creation or any individual, as those are due to avidya/adhyasa, which is ALSO an adhyaropa, just like bondage and liberation. You would be right if the world was real (and if there was a real creation, a real individual, and so on), but being a mere appearance, just like mirage, there's no question of any generation at all (apavada).

I'll say it again: in the vyavahara level he never denied the Shakti, Prarabdha-karma, external objects, etc. But the thing is: vyavahara is a mere idea, due to the fundamental superimposition of being a body, with notions of "I" and "mine"; there's no world', time, space "before" this.
So if you really wanna know SSS's position I suggest his "Śankara's clarification of certain vedantic concepts". adhyatmaprakasha.org/php/english_books.php
Or you can choose to ignore it and continue attacking strawmans.

[Anonymous No.22194113]

>>22193666
> But tell me how do you sublate the apparent reality of the waking state without the avasthatraya?
Easy, because of the Upanishad verses which say that the world of plurality and change and its contents are an illusion and that Brahman always remains the one existent and undivided, taking those verses at their word as Shankara advocates negates everything but the Brahman-Atman, because of this you don’t need the avasthatraya whatsoever, its just one of many helpful tools or conceptual devices used; the attempt of SSS to concretize it as a necessary step is modernist nonsense. This one point alone shows you how utterly wrong SSS’s reasoning is.

>What's the problem? Being an adhyaropa it will be denied (apavada) later on.
The problem is that SSS just talks about “intuiting the witness” as the final and necessary step, but he does not seem to understand that the Atman is not a witness, thus he confuses the Buddhi and Atman; this relates to everything he writes about sleep (hint: the Atman is utterly unaware of any transition between sleep and waking); hence why you were unable to provide any quotes showing that he understands this despite my request.

>In the passage by SSS that you quoted it's very clear that by Maya here he is referring to the post-advaitins Maya/Avidya-Shakti which they regard (contrary to Shankara) as being the cause of adhyasa and the world. You have to understand that he never denied the Shakti of Brahman, but that this is an adhyaropa
You’re lying, you are just desperately coping by making that up to carry water for his errors and you are not even accurately representing him anymore. Imagine being motivated by sunk-cost fallacy to lie about and misrepresent some modernist retard as le true tradition. In the quote I already provided he is saying that maya is not a sakti (power) at all but that thinking this only arises from a linguistic confusion of not realizing that Shankara using the word sakti ONLY means the ‘potential aspect of the universe of names and forms. This is further proven by the fact that when SSS defines maya in the chapter on Maya all he says is ‘Maya is the name given to Prakriti or name and form in seed form’ (- Misconceptions, page 9) without adding anything about it being a vyavahara power of Brahman. NOWHERE does he say (as you wrongly claim about him) that the one mistake about maya-as-Brahamn’s-power is to treat it as non-Vyavahara; also anything that is completely one with Brahman cannot be vyavahara or that makes Brahman itself vyavahara, you’re not even thinking about what you’re saying. You literally modified your explanation of him in response to my posting, you didn’t say that about him before in other threads; but I see right through your dishonest bullshit.

[Anonymous No.22194124]

>>22193666
>and Shankara clearly says that all this is avidya-kalpita, due to avidya
Shankara uses maya in several contexts, what he never says is that Maya-as-Brahman-Sakti is due to avidya, that is a flagrant lie to say that he does, the only contexts of him saying ‘due to avidya’ are when he is talking about prakriti-as-maya; but he never says that about maya-sakti which he explicitly says is non-different from Brahman, unlike maya-as-prakriti which is different from Brahman and is projected by maya-sakti. Maya-as-prakriti is the reflection of Maya-sakti on the cosmological level.

>But this Shakti is in no way the cause of adhyasa, Shankara never said this. The "cause" of adhyasa is simply not-knowing (aviveka)
Shankara never says that aviveka is the final or root cause but only that it can cause certain things, saying aviveka causes something else isn’t the same as saying aviveka isn’t caused by anything else. Not-knowing can only pertain to minds, and Shankara explicitly specifies that the cause of minds are the tanmatras, which are a part of prakriti, which is obviously co-extensive with the world that Shankara says that Brahman conjures or projects through maya-sakti; that shows that aviveka is caused even though once present it causes other things.

>I already said to you that SSSS does not deny Brahman (and it's Power, non-different from Him) being the source of nama-rupa (this is EXACTLY his point. he's advocating exactly for this position
No he’s not, he denies that any sakti even a vyavaharic one is attributed by Shankara to Parabraman, stop lying.

>So if you really wanna know SSS's position I suggest his "Śankara's clarification of certain vedantic concepts"
He is a modernist retard and I’ve already refuted him so hard that his online sycophants are lying about him to make him seem less incorrect, that tells you all that is worth knowing about him.

Lastly, you didn’t even respond to Shankara’s statement from BSSB 1-4-3 about the logical error of denying Maya-Sakti; but you just ignored it. And it’s clear why you chose to ignore it, there is no explanation whatsoever that can possibly reconcile it with the position of SSS and it obviously refutes him. Shankara is explicitly saying that if Brahman has no sakti then there would be no creation (meaning illusory projection) and thus no experienced samsara/vyavahara and also that there is then no reason why bound souls wouldnt be trapped again. This means that maya-sakti CANNOT be anything but Paramartha (as anything that is wholly identical with Brahman is) because if it’s ultimately denied and held as being vvayahara only then it results in the illogical consequences that Shankara identifies. Stop being a bitch and just respond directly to that point if you are going to reply to this post, stop running away from it.

[Anonymous No.22194163]

>>22194124
To be clear, BSSB 1-4-3 *cannot* be talking about the consequences of denying a vyavaharic maya-sakti, because if Shankara accepts that it is vyavaharic only and that it’s something that is ultimately retracted as being not true and that this is perfectly acceptable, then he wouldn’t have said as he in fact does that denying maya-sakti results in two illogical consequences because there *wouldn’t be any* illogical consequences to denying it in Shankara’s view if he agreed with SSS; thus, the only possible logical interpretation of the passage is that Shankara is talking about a paramarthic maya-sakti and the illogical consequences that happens if one denies it as being paramarthic. It only requires an understanding of basic logic to grasp the obvious truth of this, even a mentally retarded person can understand this.

[Anonymous No.22194218]

>>22193666
>>22194113
>>22194124
>>22194163
Imagine being this much of a poo. No wonder they dropped Buddhism—it was too simple to explain and all the brahmins would have been out of a job if they let it win.

[Anonymous No.22194343]

>>22187543
>>In fact you find the exact same tetralemma/catuskoti used in the Pali canon by the Buddha himself (agnivaccagotta sutta and malunkya sutta).
Absolutely not. It's purely mahayana
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Catuṣkoṭi

[Anonymous No.22194357]

I didn't read a single advaitin post itt. Too busy meditating

[Anonymous No.22194626]

>>22192254
you can possibly save a lot of time and effort by going straight to bodhidharmas bloodstream sermon.

>To find a Buddha, you have to see your nature. Whoever sees his nature is a Buddha.
>If you don’t see your nature, being mindful of Buddhas, reciting sutras, making offerings, and keeping precepts are not equal to it.
>Being mindful of Buddhas results in good karma, reciting sutras results in a good intelligence; keeping precepts results in a good rebirth in heavens, and making offerings results in future blessings — but no buddha.

>Long ago, the monk Good Star was able to recite the twelve groups of scriptures. But he didn’t escape the Wheel, because he didn’t see his nature.
>If this was the case with Good Star, then people nowadays who recite a few sutras or shastras and think it’s the Dharma are fools.
>Unless you see your own Heart, reciting so much prose is useless.

[Anonymous No.22194652]

>>22191781
>I'm a dzoghcen initiate
dude that's so cool, i'm on the Sakya tradition, but i never fond a guru that could initiate me into the Lamdre

[Anonymous No.22194658]

>>22187543
Siddartha is cringe lit.

>have sex, sex is cool
>have no sex, no sex is cool
>have no personality, alright

Worst book I've read

[Anonymous No.22194982]

>>22192371
Nagarjuna's interpretation of the sutta is brilliant, it goes right to the point


>Something that exists by its intrinsic being,
nothing exist by its intrinsic being, that's the basis of the pratikiasamutpada, everything exist thanks to causes and conditions

>To say that what once was is now no more
>Entails annihilation.
not at all, since each thing creates the causes and conditions for the next thing, existence on itself still exist, nihilism is when you say that reality is an illusion and don't posses real existence, Nagarjuna is saying the opposite, that everything exist just not the way we think


>Without veering towards either of these extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma by the middle
this is the middle way, the madhyamaka

[Anonymous No.22194991]

>>22194113>>22194124

You need the avasthatraya, without it you cannot intuit the Self through anvaya-vyatireka. This is exactly Shankara's point when pointing out the problems of the buddhist idealists, they wanted to prove the unreality of waking from waking's perspective, which does not make sense. Only the advaitin can do this because he has another perspective or vision (Sakshi), not tainted by waking/dream.

But this intuition of the Sakshi is by no means the final step as it's still rooted in duality (sakshi-sakshya), and the Sakshi is in no way related to any buddhi (it is the Witness of the buddhi), which is a mere intellectual and individual faculty. If you took the time to actually read a book by SSS instead of cherrypicking it you would know that.

If he says that Maya is the name given to Prakrti it's OBVIOUS that it's vyavahara, as there's no nama-rupa from Paramartha's "standpoint". There's no need to mention it. I already pointed what how in Adhyasa-bhashya Shankara talks about how every type of investigation is dependent on Adhyasa, so it's vyavahara.
The passage is clearly taking Maya as the Avidya-Shakti of post-advaitins so that's why he criticizes. So yes, it is vyavahara because to talk of any creation/generation/manifestation is to be subjected to causality, which is vyavaharika. You cannot grasp how Adhyasa is fundamental to all this, and seems to think that there's some real cause and effect indepedent of it.
Shankara clearly says: "the effect is a mere play of words". And a cause cannot be a cause without an effect, so it's the same as Gaudapada's Ajata doctrine.

Listen, there's first of all:
(1) Avidya/Adhyasa, which makes you look at yourself as an individual, a jiva.
(2) From this fundamental superimposition comes all ideas of duality and creation (Brahman as a cause and the world as effect and so on), and the whole space-time-causality framework.

Your problem is that you think that there's some REAL causality out there, independent of your own Ignorance. But causaliy is a mere IDEA, it's mithya-jñana. Any type of Shakti or creation or souls or tanmatras is namarupa which is "within" causality which is a MISTAKEN NOTION, due to avidya, this is said over and over again in the adhyasa bhashya and the whole purpose of the Karikas is to show this truth.
"56. As long as there is faith in causality, the (endless) chain of birth and death will be there. When that faith is destroyed (by knowledge) birth and death become nonexistent."

And here's the utility of the avasthatraya, because you SEE directly, through your own Anubhava, the appearance and disappearance of this so-called adhyasa (and it's "consequences" e.g. souls,world,cause,effect,veda,vidya-avidya, etc) while Consciouness remains untouched by it, just like a rope which is not affected by any imaginary snake whatsoever.

So I didn't ignore or modified anything, it's you who can't understand the proper "order" (I can't a find a better word) of things.

[Anonymous No.22195003]

Like all hindus, advaitins discriminate between wake, sleep, deep sleep and other. Their categories are pathetic compared to buddhism.
Those people have nothing to teach about consciousness.

[Anonymous No.22195054]

“The Buddhist Schools of the Small Vehicle” André Bareau

Mahāsāṃghika
This schools arose during the 1st schism, which occurred due to the five theses of Mahādeva regarding the Arahants. 5 theses were:

(1) Arahants can still be led astray by others (nocturnal emissions)

(2) Arahants are still subject to ignorance. This is not ‘defiled ignorance’ (avidyā) but of the lesser kind known as ‘undefiled ignorance’ (akliṣṭa ajñāna). Examples would be not knowing where a city is, or the name of someone

(3) Arahants are still subject to doubt (kāṇkṣā)

(4) Arahants can be instructed and informed by others

(5) Entry into the Noble Path by an Arahant can be accompanied by a vocal utterance (vacībheda), which generates the appearance of the Path

These 5 theses lead to the calling of the 2nd Buddhist council. Those who accepted the 5 theses called themselves the Mahāsāṃghika, whilst those who did not called themselves Sthaviras (Theras/Elders). Two points here. Firstly, as Ven. Sujato has shown, the 5 theses were the cause of the “schism” (although no official schism actually occurred, due to the kammic consequences) rather than points about the Vinaya. Secondly the name “Mahāsāṃghika” doesn’t mean they were numerically larger. By calling themselves Mahāsāṃghika they are referring to the original undivided sangha that existed before the split. The Great Sangha. Some other interesting things to note would be that the Mahāsāṃghika had an Abhidharma of their own, which is also evident by their use of the concept of “sabhāva”, thus showing that they subscribed to the dhamma theory. This shows that the Abhidharma project, the dharma theory and the concept of sabhāva was shared by nearly all (if not all) of the early Buddhist schools. Also note that for the Mahāsāṃghika the Buddha is an eternal substance (dravya) and that they recognised a root consciousness, which is similar to the Bhavaṅga of Theravāda and Vasubandhu’s store-house consciousness (ālāyavijñāna) in Yogācāra. Regarding meditation they also seemed to view vitakka-vicāra as being a condition for speech when concentration was weak, but as being closer to “applied and sustained thought” when strong

Texts
The Mahāsāṃghika texts were divided into a Vinaya-piṭaka, Sūtra-piṭaka and Abhidharma-piṭaka. Their Sūtra-piṭaka contained a Dīrgha Āgama, Madhyama Āgama, Saṃyukta Āgama, Ekottara Āgama and Kṣudraka Āgama

Doctrines
1) Buddhas are transcendental (lokottara) – The body of the Buddhas is transcendental and pure.

2) The Buddhas are free from impurities and wordly things (dharma) – The 18 elements within the body of the Buddha are pure. The 3 kinds of actions the Buddhas accomplish are also pure. The birth of Buddhas is also pure.

3) In all their words the Buddhas set in motion the turning of the Wheel of Dharma – The Wheel of Dharma is not only the path but all of the words uttered by the Buddha. Even words like “How are you?” or “Is it raining?” have profound meaning and can lead to liberation

[Anonymous No.22195059]

>>22195054
6) The physical body of the Buddha is unlimited – Having cultivated merit for aeons the body of the Buddha is perfect and unlimited. The visible body of the Buddha (said to be six feet tall) is not his true body but is his transformation body, by which he appears to beings. His true body has unlimited measure, unlimited number (he can manifest in different bodies in different ages) and is from unlimited causes.

7) The might (supernormal powers) of the Buddha is unlimited – In a single instant he can deploy his might anywhere in all universes.

8) The life span of the Buddha is unlimited – Since he cultivated great merit and developed a perfect body through aeons his life span is unlimited and indestructible. Since the numerous beings are infinite, so too must be the Buddha so he can work to the advantage of each one.

9) The Buddha never has a thought of satisfaction even when liberating beings.

10) The Buddha never sleeps nor dreams – In sleep citta is obscured and dispersed, but the Buddha is always in meditation.

11) The Buddhas answer questions without reflecting – They expound the Dhamma spontaneously.

12) In a single thought moment they understand all things (dharmas) – The Buddha in a single thought moment, due to his immense merit, can understand all dharmas in terms of their different aspects and own-nature (sabhāva).

13) Through wisdom associated with a single thought moment they know all things (dharmas) – When they reach the path of deliverance, they know the sabhāva of all things at once. They then have no need for further mental series in order to know all things, since they perfectly know the sabhāva of wisdom (prajñā/paññā).

14) The knowledge of destruction and non-arising continue unceasingly until final nirvāṇa – Since the 18 elements which make up the Buddhas are free from impurities, knowledge free from impurities is constantly present.

15) The Buddhas abide in all directions – There are Buddhas in all directions, in all the universes, everywhere.

17) The Buddhas exists as substance (dravya).

18) When the Buddhas enter the womb, they do not go through the impure stages of embryonic development. They enter fully developed and do not need impure material such as sperm to be born.

19) When they enter the womb they appear as a white elephant.

20) When they exist the body, they are born from the right side and not through the vagina.

21) There is no intermediate existence between births.

22) Because they make an aspiration to improve beings, bodhisattvas can be reborn in bad destinations.

23) The 4 Noble Truths are known at once, in an instant – Since when one sees the Truths clearly one sees their common natures and their sabhāva, clear comprehension should take place in a single instant.

24) The 6 senses are both endowed with craving and free from craving.

25) In the formless there exists subtle matter.

[Anonymous No.22195061]

>>22195059
26) When one is in a state of concentration (samāhitāvasthā) there is vocal utterance (vacibheda), disciplined (saṃvṛta) thought (citta) and attention (manasikāra) – When the meditator is not yet in the first level of concentration one can arouse bodily actions. The body, being the support of concentration, having moved disperses thought since thought follows that movement when it should remain stable. When stable thought objectifies the object of meditation, but when dispersed thought can cause vocal action.

28) What had to be done, having been done, there are no more grounds – When Arahants take objects they no longer take them in their different aspects but instead only know the things which causality (hetupratyaya) caused to arise.

29) Those who are stream-enterers can understand the own-nature (sabhāva) of their mind and mental factors.

30) Morality and concentration cannot be means leading to the cessation of suffering and the preparation for the acquisition of nirvāṇa. Wisdom alone is able to attain this result.

31) Suffering is also a nutriment (āhāra).

32) The stream-enterer can regress, but the Arahant can not.

33) Actions are either good or bad. There is no kamma which is neither good nor bad.

34) Stream-enters can commit minor misdeeds.

35) There are 9 unconditioned dharmas: 1) cessation through acquired knowledge; 2) cessation without acquired knowledge; 3) space; 4) the sphere of the infinity of space; 5) the sphere of the infinity of consciousness; 6) the sphere of nothingness; 7) the sphere of neither perception nor non-perception; 8) the own-nature (sabhāva) of the links of dependent origination; 9) the own-nature (sabhāva) of the sections of the path.

36) The own-nature (sabhāva) of the mind is originally clear. It is the defilements which stain it.

37) The underlying tendencies are not thoughts or mental factors and are devoid of an object – The underlying tendencies only exist in the body.

38) The underlying tendencies are different from the obsessions.

39) The past and future do not exist in reality.

40) Stream-enters can also obtain the dhyāna.

41) Even in thought (citta) there is matter (rūpa).

42) There is no conventional meaning.

43) The underlying tendencies are undefined, uncaused and dissociated from thought.

44) Restraint and lack of restraint of the senses are both actions.

45) All kamma is endowed with fruition – The result of all kamma has to be experienced.

46) Sound is the result of kamma.

47) The six-sense spheres are the result of kamma.

48) Causality is determined.

49) The aging and death of transcendental dharmas are themselves transcendental – Since aging and death of transcendental dharmas are not worldly, they are transcendental.

50) The Arahant still has the fetter of ignorance and uncertainty.

51) There is a root consciousness (mūlavijñāna) which serves as the support to the other sense consciousnesses.

[Anonymous No.22195090]

If the budha is so smart how does he explain this

[Anonymous No.22195199]

>>22194982
Things do not exist when the conditions for their existence do not exist, but they do exist when the conditions exist. This is "anatta".

The simple denial of an "atta" is not "anatta". Annihilationists, like Buddhism, denied the existence of the "atta" that the Brahmans claimed. However, the type of denial they did was so radical that at the same time they denied they ended up affirming another Eternal reality, that is, a new type of "atta", different from what the Brahmans taught, but still a "atta".

In Buddhism, the existence or non-existence of something is only possible by analyzing the condition for existence. This means that Buddhism can never give a categorical answer to any such question, it is always asked in conditional terms.

For example: Do I exist?
If there are conditions to maintain existence, then I exist, when those conditions no longer exist, I don't exist.

[Anonymous No.22195223]

>>22195090
aphantasics actually have a higher iq than average btw

[Anonymous No.22195330]

>>22187543
This is a mistake. Mahayana texts are generally intended for people with little capacity for understanding, or for people who do not have much ethical capacity.

One of the recurring themes, for example, is the idea of "the end of the law", in which people would not even be able to follow the precepts. Thus, the texts offer easier and more available practices for these people.

The hearers' vehicle would be more suited to those who have wisdom inclinations, greater personal abilities, etc.

This is why Mahayanists often have lay people teaching them, as is the case with the Vimalakirti Sutra and the Perfect Wisdom Sutra.
Including lay people who can't stop being awful, full of lust and hatred, in order to kill Buddhism from the inside.

[Anonymous No.22195394]

>>22195199
>This is "anatta".
no, you're confused, anatta is no-self and is basically a quality of the mind, what permeates the existence of phenomena is anicca, two different concepts
>the type of denial they did was so radical that at the same time they denied they ended up affirming another Eternal reality, that is, a new type of "atta"
that's just a bad analisis on the anatta doctrine
>In Buddhism, the existence or non-existence of something is only possible by analyzing the condition for existence
wrong, Buddhism also study the causes, so there's not only conditional terms but also the causal aspect, which creates the neccesary foundation for a complete ontology
>If there are conditions to maintain existence, then I exist, when those conditions no longer exist, I don't exist.
as said here>>22192371
>>“‘All exists’: Kaccana, this is one extreme. ‘All does not exist’: this is the second extreme. Without veering towards either of these extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma by the middle
notions of pure exitence of nothingess are shallow and rooted on ignorance, buddha didn't teach such things

your notions of what budhism is are completly mixed and full of errors and misconceptions, you should go back to study if you wanna engage on these topics

[Anonymous No.22195562]

>>22194991
>You need the avasthatraya, without it you cannot intuit the Self through anvaya-vyatireka.
False, that's modernist nonsense that Shankara never says. You don't "intuit" the Self but it's already known and simply correcting the errors leads to this already known and self-evident Self-knowledge shining clearly, this isn't an "intuition" but is just an automatic revealing that accompanies the correction/sublation of erroneous view, Shankara writes about the Upanishadic sentences propounding non-duality and negating duality as being all that are needed for this to occur; he never says that avasthatraya is necessary. You didn't even address the point that was made but you are just repeating your own debunked talking points in circles like a braindead cultist. Avasthatraya is completely unnecessary because the Sruti verses negating duality negate everything besides the Self, period.

>This is exactly Shankara's point when pointing out the problems of the buddhist idealists, they wanted to prove the unreality of waking from waking's perspective, which does not make sense. Only the advaitin can do this because he has another perspective or vision (Sakshi), not tainted by waking/dream.
No, this is more lies by SSS that are not supported by the text. The main argument that Shankara makes against the vijnanavadins is that he attacks their denial of the world as existing outside of one's own mental perception (what SSS also does like the vijnanavadins), that's what 75% of his attacks against them in BSSB talk about the rest is attacking their denial is self which is shared with his criticism of all Buddhist schools. You don't have and sources to back up that claim.

>But this intuition of the Sakshi is by no means the final step as it's still rooted in duality (sakshi-sakshya), and the Sakshi is in no way related to any buddhi (it is the Witness of the buddhi), which is a mere intellectual and individual faculty. If you took the time to actually read a book by SSS instead of cherrypicking it you would know that.
Why don't you provide a single example or source of him saying this then? Are you scared to? Are you lying? Why shill a modernist retard if you are incapable of sourcing your claims about his position?

[Anonymous No.22195568]

>>22194991
>If he says that Maya is the name given to Prakrti it's OBVIOUS that it's vyavahara, as there's no nama-rupa from Paramartha's "standpoint". There's no need to mention it.
Prakriti and maya-as-prakrtiti is obviously vyavahara but maya-as-inherent-power-of-projecting is obviously paramartha, since Shankara explicitly says that the latter is identical with Brahman and he criticizes the illogical consequences of denying this of Brahman in BSSB 1-4-3, I predicted that you would be too scared to respond to BSSB 1-4-3 directly and lo and behold, you are still being a bitch and are too afraid to attempt to explain what Shankara meant by that passage, you've already lost the debate and are just digging your own hole deeper the longer you keep running away from confronting that verse. I'm probably going to make a meme about it to save time and just repost it so that whenever you shill SSS people ask you about that verse and see that you run away in fright from it.

>I already pointed what how in Adhyasa-bhashya Shankara talks about how every type of investigation is dependent on Adhyasa, so it's vyavahara.
All that Shankara means there is simply that adhyasa is a natural part of the spiritual ignorance of transmigrating creatures because of how it contributes to keeping them in ignorance and thus leading them to continually transmigrate; that is not at all mutually exclusive with or inconsistent with Brahman having a paramarthic sakti that produces/projects all of samsara; it's faulty to logic to act as though these are mutually exclusive when there is no logical reason why this is actually the case.

>The passage is clearly taking Maya as the Avidya-Shakti of post-advaitins so that's why he criticizes.
You are lying and you are incapable of producing any sourced passage that shows that this is the intent of SSS, while I have already provided evidence that goes against your claims. He is explicitly disagreeing with attributing ANY sakti to Parabrahman and not just a paramarthic one in the passage I quoted.

[Anonymous No.22195570]

>>22194991

>So yes, it is vyavahara because to talk of any creation/generation/manifestation is to be subjected to causality, which is vyavaharika.
False, because Vivartavada isn't a real creation but is rather an illusory appearance projected by Brahman, you and SSS seem utterly incapable of understanding this, Vivartavada accounts for the appearance of the vyavahara and explains why it's there at all but without making causal relations real
>You cannot grasp how Adhyasa is fundamental to all this, and seems to think that there's some real cause and effect indepedent of it.
refer to the above point and stop playing dumb
>Shankara clearly says: "the effect is a mere play of words". And a cause cannot be a cause without an effect, so it's the same as Gaudapada's Ajata doctrine.
Vivartavada negates the reality of the effect while rooting the reason for it's appearance in the source (Parabrahman) which is endowed with the inherent paramarthic power to make is appear as an illusion, all Shankara means there is that the effect isn't real and not that Brahman is not projecting it

>Listen, there's first of all:
>(1) Avidya/Adhyasa, which makes you look at yourself as an individual, a jiva.
It involves an infinite regress to say this alone accounts for samsara, there can only be avidya if it's rooted in Brahman who projects it along with all samsara; Shankara explicitly says in BSSB 1-4-3 that if Brahman isn't the source of samsara then there is nothing stopping it from entrapping freed souls again
>Your problem is that you think that there's some REAL causality out there, independent of your own Ignorance.
No, I am saying that Brahman's paramarthic maya-sakti projects samsara through Vivartavada, Vivartavada doesn't make duality or the causal nexus real, it only accounts for their appearance as an illusion, SSS fails to understand that this is the intent of Shankara which is confirmed in countless passages where he insists that all of samsara has to ultimately originate from Brahman's power.

[Anonymous No.22195577]

>>22194991
>"56. As long as there is faith in causality, the (endless) chain of birth and death will be there. When that faith is destroyed (by knowledge) birth and death become nonexistent."
Whenever causation is attacked in Gaudapada and Shankara's works they are talking about non-Vivartavada models and not Vivartavada which they accept as the explanation for how Brahman projects samsara, they are attacking people who (1) think that the causal nexus that is within samsara is real and (2) thinks that Brahman creates some real and existent duality; neither of which is true of Vivartavada as understood by traditional Vedantins and Shankara and Gaudapada
>>And here's the utility of the avasthatraya, because you SEE directly, through your own Anubhava
Modernist neovedanta nonsense
>So I didn't ignore or modified anything, it's you who can't understand the proper "order" (I can't a find a better word) of things.
You are coping, lying about SSS's position, and you are STILL afraid to confront BSSB 1-4-3, I ask you again, explain what Shankara meant in BSSB 1-4-3 about the two illogical consequences of denying any sakti to Brahman, what could he possibly mean by writing that if he agrees with your neovedanta nonsense?

[Anonymous No.22195792]

What You Might Not Know about Jhāna & Samādhi

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gT1rCJ3K4Hk_1cOAVi0CO6TSRLbvzcuX/view
Reconstructing Early Buddhism

Author: Roderick S. Bucknell, University of Queensland

Date Published: October 2022
availability: Available
format: Hardback
isbn: 9781009236522
https://www.cambridge.org/au/universitypress/subjects/religion/buddhism-and-eastern-religions/reconstructing-early-buddhism?format=HB

[Anonymous No.22195796]

>>22195792
>Reconstructing Early Buddhism
Buddhist origins and discussion of the Buddha's teachings are amongst the most controversial and contested areas in the field. This bold and authoritative book tackles head-on some of the key questions regarding early Buddhism and its primary canon of precepts. Noting that the earliest texts in Pali, Sanskrit and Chinese belong to different Buddhist schools, Roderick S. Bucknell addresses the development of these writings during the period of oral transmission between the Buddha's death and their initial redaction in the first century BCE. A meticulous comparative analysis reveals the likely original path of meditative practice applied and taught by Gautama. Fresh perspectives now emerge on both the Buddha himself and his Enlightenment. Drawing on his own years of meditative experience as a Buddhist monk, the author offers here remarkable new interpretations of advanced practices of meditation, as well as of Buddhism itself. It is a landmark work in Buddhist Studies.

Exciting: brings bold and potentially game-changing new perspectives to the study of early Buddhism and to the teachings of its founder
Relevant: uses expert comparative analysis of the earliest Buddhist texts to reveal the path of meditative practice that the Buddha most probably followed to achieve Enlightenment
Revolutionary: brings fresh understandings to the historical Buddha – Gautama – and to the contested context of how Buddhism as a religion came into being
Table of Contents

Part I. Background and Context:
1. Introducing the project
2. The Saṅgha and the oral transmission
3. Scriptural sources
Part II. The Path:
4. The stepwise training
5. Derivative accounts of the path
6. The eightfold path
Part III. The Practice:
7. Mindfulness
8. Concentration
9. The three knowledges
Part IV. In Conclusion:
10. Summary and implications.

[Anonymous No.22195803]

>>22194991
>>22195562
>>22195568
>>22195570

The meme that finally ended SSSfags once and for all

[Anonymous No.22195814]

>>22187543
I've been left ravaged by much mental illness. I'll probably be the type of person who ends up in some program with an "adapted" workload for spazz-cases. I'm intelligent on paper at least though I've little to show for it. I'm looking forward to some decades of this kind of work, that is if I have the humility to do what's right by my family (just try to take care of myself and not have them worry). What would buddhism mean for someone like me?

[Anonymous No.22195830]

>>22187543
>Tl;Dr: all phenomena (dhammas) and entities (puggalas) are conditionally dependent (paticcasamupada) and therefore empty (sunnata) and this is the core of the Buddha's teaching on the nature of the world.
what use is this knowledge?

[Anonymous No.22195932]

What would be an achievable good karma way of life for the present day? What is necessary knowledge for meaningful action and how is that knowledge achieved?

[Anonymous No.22195943]

>>22195830
You can stop caring

[Anonymous No.22195978]

>>22195943
it seems the hellscape scenario is still a possibility. I think, anyway, I don't really know.

[Anonymous No.22196066]

>>22195562
>>22195568
>>22195570
I already showed you the necessity of the avasthatraya, and how Shankara himself says that it's the vedantic method. You just chose to twist the meaning to appeal your own intellect. If the avasthatraya and especially the intuition of deep sleep wasn't important it would not be mentioned hundreds of times in all scriptures (shruti, smriti, itihasa).
I already showed how being a "method" it's obviously an adhyaropa, and the Sakshi is later negated as there's no real thing to be "witnessed".
I already responded to your whole Shakti thing, which is a concept useful only in vyavahara regarding creation, which is not real from paramartha standpoint. Can't you understand that the purpose of vedanta is not a cosmological one and its not to teach any creation? So your whole talk about Shakti is accepted only on vyavahara domain. Period.

There's NO projection of any kind on Paramartha, because that would imply a second thing to Brahman, which is One WITHOUT a second. Is that so hard to understand? Your excerpt makes no difference whatsoever. There's no such thing as a "paramarthic sakti". It's evident that there's no Shakti on Parabrahman, the Absolute does not act.

It makes no difference if you say that creation is illusory while still holding that Brahman is projecting anything.
The whole point of the teaching of Brahman being the only cause is to ultimately sublate the idea of causality. Without causality there's no Brahman as cause with Shakti, no world as effect, no jiva, no veda, no bondage and no liberation. basically, no samsara.

There's also no infinite regress as the idea of causality is within Adhyasa itself (as are all questions of locus, cause. effect of avidya).

There's no causal relationship between an appearance and it's substratum (there never was any snake, it didn't emerge or went anywhere), to seek an "account" for appearance is to get trapped in samsara, as the whole idea of causality happens only due to Adhyasa, can't you grasp this? By not understanding this simple fact you keep attacking strawmans and confusing paramartha-vyavahara, and no amount of insults or memes will make any difference.

I'll say it again: there's NO causality outside vyavahara, so ultimately no brahman-shakti-mind-world whatosever, as all these are mere IDEAS dependent on Adhyasa.

I can post how many quotes you want, but it will make no difference as you just chooses to interpret the way you want. Intellectual honesty is not something that I can teach, unfortunately.

[Anonymous No.22196325]

What is the basis for the assumption of good deeds necessarily rendering good?

[Anonymous No.22196361]

Reminder that Nagarjuna means white snake

[Anonymous No.22196402]

>>22196325
It's a conventional teaching not an ultimate one

If you understand sunyavada properly you realize the explanation of worldly teaching on morality is that: suffering tends to follow immoral action and this detracts from your ability to meditate

[Anonymous No.22197751]

>>22196361
Arjuna means white?

[Anonymous No.22197770]

>>22195830
free you from neurosis and let you live a more natural and authentic life

[Anonymous No.22197771]

>>22196361
I prefer "Dragonborn" or "Conqueror of the Serpent"

[Anonymous No.22198100]

>>22196066
>I already showed you the necessity of the avasthatraya
No you didn't, I explained why it was unnecessary because of the Upanishadic verses that negate everything but the Atman and you failed to demonstrate why this is incorrect, thus you have not shown anything
>Shankara himself says that it's the vedantic method
He also says a bunch of other things are used as methods but SSS is arbitrary about which ones that he tries to concretize as 'The' method. Shankara never says that any one thing is THE ultimate method over others, that's purely the invention of SSS's own imagination (svakapola kalpita)
>If the avasthatraya and especially the intuition of deep sleep wasn't important it would not be mentioned hundreds of times in all scriptures
It isn't mentioned hundreds of times, the Mandukya is literally the only primary Upanishad that is explicit about it, the other Upanishads occasionally talk about sleep but sometimes with a different emphasis than others and they don't connect it with an overall scheme and mention turiya like M.U. does
>I already showed how being a "method" it's obviously an adhyaropa
You were unable to produce any citation showing that SSS understands Atman isn't a witness, you are just inferring this on fallible grounds, not convincing
>I already responded to your whole Shakti thing, which is a concept useful only in vyavahara regarding creation, which is not real from paramartha standpoint.
Shankara explicitly refutes this and also refutes SSS in his Brahma Sutra Bhashya 1-4-3 (see pic related); but pointing out that it results in logically absurd and untenable consequences
>There's NO projection of any kind on Paramartha, because that would imply a second thing to Brahman, which is One WITHOUT a second. Is that so hard to understand?
No it doesn't imply a second thing, since the Sakti is identical with Brahman's own nature and is thus not a second thing and the product is illusory and thus lacks existence; Shankara states this in his Gita-Bhashya where he says God's power of illusion is non-different from himself: "Indeed, that power of God through which Brahman sets out, comes forth, for the purpose of favouring the devotees, etc., that power which is Brahman Itself, am I. For, a power and the possesser of that power are non-different" - Shankara, Gita-Bhashya 14.27. This refutes you and SSS

[Anonymous No.22198106]

>>22196066
>There's also no infinite regress as the idea of causality is within Adhyasa itself
Yes there is, because the non-existent lacks the capacity to appear as anything on its own and the regress occurs when it has no means or grounds which would permit it to appear as vyavaharic experience. Shankara refutes you and SSS on this point in his Taittiriya Bhashya: "And, no effect is perceived in this world as having been produced from a nonentity. If such effects as name and form had originated from a nonentity (LIKE AVIDYA YOU IDIOT), they should not have been perceived since they have no reality. But they are perceived. Hence Brahman exists. Should any effect originate from a nonentity, it should remain soaked in unreality even while being perceived. But facts point otherwise. Therefore Brahman exists." - Shankara, Taittiriya Upanishad Bhashya 2.6.1

[Anonymous No.22198109]

>>22198100
*BY pointing out

[Anonymous No.22198633]

>>22195932
the 5 precepts are enough for good karma. anything beyond this requires meditation.
The necessary knowledge is right view and it's gotten by sila first and then meditation.

[Anonymous No.22198637]

>>22195932
the 5 precepts are enough for good karma. anything beyond this requires the jhanas, ie ''right meditation''.
The necessary knowledge is right view and it's gotten by sila first and then the jhanas.

[Anonymous No.22198746]

>>22187543
It seems you forgot the Safoasfgloasgidsargjoian text which directly refutes this. Keep at it anon, you'll understand some day.

[Anonymous No.22198747]

Advaita is false
Brahman isn't real
Nor is atma

[Anonymous No.22198875]

>>22193083
Do you have the name of the book that you read this in? I wanna read some Buddhist apologia against Christianity.

[Anonymous No.22199138]

>>22198100
>It isn't mentioned hundreds of times,
Therefore, in suṣupti, jīva joins its own svarūpa - say the Brahmajñānis. ChUbh6.8.1

See also: BrahmaSutra Bhasya BSBh 1.1.9; 1.3.20; 1.4.18; 3.2.7; 3.2.11; 3.3.35; and also BrUBh 2.1.7 (291)

“At that time (i.e. in dreamless sleep) cause and effect resulting from Ignorance desire, merit and demerit cease” PrUbh4.6.

“With a view to show that it is in dreamless sleep alone that we find the Self in its form as a deity, liberated from its condition as an individual soul, the argument proceeds further” (ChU Bh. 6.8.1)

“Where Ignorance, desire and action are absent … This is the form of the Self where it is beyond fear and danger …For Ignorance, which sets up the idea of otherness, is absent.” (BrUbh 4.3.21)

“that form of the Self which is directly perceived in dreamless sleep, and which is devoid of Ignorance, desire, merit and demerit, is the subject of the discourse here' (Brhad. Bh. 4.3.22)

Those things that caused the particular visions (of the waking and dream states), namely the mind, the eyes and forms, were all presented by Ignorance as something different from the Self.” (Brhad. Bh. 4.3.23)

“When, however, that Ignorance which presents things other than the Self has ceased, in that state of dreamless sleep… and It is Ignorance that separates a second entity, and that has ceased in the state of dreamless sleep.” (Brhad. Bh. 4.3.32

the self has been spoken of as going from the waking to the dream state, and thence to the state of profound sleep, which is the illustration for liberation. Brb h 4.3.34

How does such a man attain liberation? This is being stated: He who sees the Self, as in the state of profound sleep, as undifferentiated, one without a second, and as the constant light of Pure Intelligence-only this disinterested man has no work and consequently no cause for transmigration Brbh 4.4.6

In the same way, my dear one, because they had no knowledge when they mingled with pure Being, all these creatures likewise, the tiger and so forth, have no knowledge of the fact when they have returned from pure Being. They are not aware, ‘I have returned from pure Being’. Chand. Bh. Vl.ix.l

But as there is the absence of both the mind and its functions in deep sleep, I am Pure Consciousness, all pervading and changeless. US11.3
want more?

[Anonymous No.22199187]

>>22198100
> is THE ultimate method over others,
SSS never said this,
the method of vedanta is Adhyaropapavada, and avasthatraya is just an instance of adhyaropapavada

The self is referred hundres of times in the scriptures as the Witness, Eternal vision (brihadaranyaka), Eye of Knowledge (Gita), this is an adhyaropa, because to be a witness you have to have a thing to be witnessed. So in a sense (adhyaropita) IT IS a witness, but this witnesshood will be later negated. Even Turiya is an adhyropa, you can only call it the Fourth in relation to the other three. Ultimately the Self is only silence (badhva's statement quoted by Shankara).

Now, the whole vedanta teaching happens in vyavahara, due to Adhyasa, so first you HAVE to treat the Self in some kind of relation, so you call it (provisionally) as "Witness"(Sakshi)

If Brahman is said to be in some relation (and if you say that his projecting anything it means literally a relation) then it's vyavahara, it means that all this talk is already in the grips of adhyasa. When this adhyasa is absent (as in deep sleep) there's no Brahman projecting anything. This standpoint is called Paramartha. It's not that you're wrong, but that your whole discourse is vyavahara only, as there's no relationship whatsoever in Parabrahman which is asangah.

>>22198106
there's no infinite regress as all apperance/disapperance is in vyavahara domain (subjected to causality). Is it so hard to understand that in the Paramartha there's no causality and without causality all talk of origination/projection/creation holds no water?

If i'm saying that there's no causality why are you telling me that i'm implying some kind of causation from a non-entity? It's you who's holding to causation. I'm saying that all causation and perception is vyavahara, happens only in dream/waking, not on Paramartha

[Anonymous No.22199239]

>>22199138
>>“At that time (i.e. in dreamless sleep) cause and effect resulting from Ignorance desire, merit and demerit cease” PrUbh4.6.
>
>“With a view to show that it is in dreamless sleep alone that we find the Self in its form as a deity, liberated from its condition as an individual soul, the argument proceeds further” (ChU Bh. 6.8.1)
>
>“Where Ignorance, desire and action are absent … This is the form of the Self where it is beyond fear and danger …For Ignorance, which sets up the idea of otherness, is absent.” (BrUbh 4.3.21)
So this is the power of Hinduism which totally predates Buddhism huh. WOah.

[Anonymous No.22199359]

>>22199138
Those are not anywhere near to being hundreds of passages, not only are you hopelessly confused about Vedanta but you clealy don't know how to count either kek. Yes its true that other Upanishads mention sleep but they don't present the same scheme with turiya being involved that the MU does.

You also just ignore all the passages where Shankara clearly says that avidya is present in dreamless sleep in a latent form (which refutes SSS) just like traditional Advaitins affirm like in BSSB 2-3-31:

पुंस्त्वादिवत् त्वस्य सतोऽभिव्यक्तियोगात् ॥ ३१ ॥
puṃstvādivat tvasya sato’bhivyaktiyogāt || 31 ||

31. Rather because that contact (with the intellect etc.) which remains latent (in sleep and dissolution) can become manifest (during waking and creation) like manhood etc. (from boyhood etc.)

Shankaracharya Bhashya on that verse: We see in the world that manhood etc. though existing all the time in a latent state, are not perceived during boyhood etc. and are thus treated as though non-existent, but they become manifest in youth etc.; and it is not a fact that they evolve out of nothing, for in that case even a eunuch should grow those (moustaches etc.). Similarly, too, the contact with the intellect etc. remains in a state of latency during sleep and dissolution and emerges again during waking and creation. For thus alone it becomes logical. Nothing can possibly be born capriciously, for that would lead to unwarranted possibilities (of effects being produced without causes). The Upanisad also shows that this waking from sleep is possible because of the existence of ignorance in a seed form (remaining dormant in sleep): "Though unified with Existence (Brahman) in sleep, they do not understand, 'We have merged in Existence.' They return here as a tiger or a lion" (just as they had been here before) (Ch. AT ix. 3) etc. Hence it is proved that the contact with the intellect etc. persists as long as the individuality of the soul lasts.

There is no way to be mistaken about Shankara's intent there unless you are lying to yourself, he is clearly saying that Avidya is present in a latent form during dreamless sleep, and says "FOR THUS ALONE IT BECOMES LOGICAL" and says the contrary position leads to the retarded result of unwarranted effects being produced by/out of nothing whatsoever. And he further cites Sruti verses in support of this.

[Anonymous No.22199421]

>>22199187
>SSS never said this,
>the method of vedanta is Adhyaropapavada, and avasthatraya is just an instance of adhyaropapavada
Shankara doesn't say adhyaropapavada is the main method, the central method or the most important method anywhere either, he just describes it as a method, just like there are dozens of instances of him describing other methods and techniques as well, SSS just tries to concretize one of these in an arbitrary fashion because he is a modernist trying to turn Vedanta into an empirical rationalism.

>Ultimately the Self is only silence (badhva's statement quoted by Shankara).
No, that's incorrect, it has an ultimate uncompounded nature which cannot be objectified by which can be indicated and hinted as through things like negation (neti neti) and metaphors/implication (laksana), but it just has to be kept in mind that these don't delimit or objectify Brahman

> (and if you say that his projecting anything it means literally a relation)
Incorrect since only one thing exists, the relation accounts for the One as the basis of the false appearance without enshrining an existent relation between two existing things and within enshring causal relations as a real relationship *beyond* samsara, SSS's IQ was not high enough to understand or appreciate this subtle concept though

>there's no infinite regress as all apperance/disapperance is in vyavahara domain (subjected to causality).
You just committed the informal logical fallacy known as 'ignoratio elenchi'

>An irrelevant conclusion, also known as ignoratio elenchi (Latin for 'ignoring refutation') or missing the point, is the informal fallacy of presenting an argument that may or may not be logically valid and sound, but (whose conclusion) fails to address the issue in question.

What you wrote was ignoratio enlenchi because it's not addressing the point that was actually made, namely that the regress specifically occurs because non-existence lacks the capability to appear as anything as Shankara points out (try responding to his specific statement, which occurs in Tattiriya Bhashya and not is not occurring for any "point of view" attacking another school. Saying that this occurs in the vyavahara doesn't eliminate this issue since Shankara doesn't ever say that normal rules of logic don't govern or apply to how things behave and logically function in the vyavahara (all his arguments are predicated on the opposite being true in fact), it's just that the vyavahara is not the ultimate ground reality. Saying "but muh vyavahara" doesn't excuse or make okay propounding illogical and retarded claims, that's why Shankara always defends his teaching as logical even when talking about things occurring on the vyavahara level.

Try responding this time without using a fallacy

[Anonymous No.22199426]

>>22199421
*and without enshring causal relations as a real relationship *beyond* samsara,

[Anonymous No.22199449]

>>22199359
So what matters is quantity then?
Yes, Turiya is mentioned only in the Mandukya, it's an adhyaropa present only there. Nothing new.

Let me teach you something, see if you can understand. Try a little hard, ok:

. All the talks about deep sleep is done by a jiva in the waking state. This jiva per definition is subjected to something called Adhyasa (theres no jivatman independent of adhyasa). Therefore all speculation that you do on deep sleep is done under Ignorance, so you think: "I'm an individual who's wake, that goes to dream and goes to sleep and come back", this is the natural assumption . But the mind has no direct access to deep sleep, because it's totally absent there. Deep Sleep as a causal state, having a bija and avidya in latent form are called adhyaropas, because they're merely created by your mind. So to get the attention of the jijñasu to deep sleep they first call it Prajña, as the origin of waking/dream. But this all done under the natural (naisargika) assumption of being an individual (adhyasika). When this assumption is dropped (that is, when the jijñasa recognized himself as the pure Atman, relationless, immutable and immobile) then there's no one going anywhere, so there's no more talk about souls going and coming out of sleep, because you have sublated the avidya that makes one think of himself as a jiva. And that's the "point of view" of those passages that say straight up that deep sleep is Brahman.

Adhyaropa - apavada, that's the key

[Anonymous No.22199473]

>>22199421
all those methods are just particularizations of adhyaropa apavada, if you cant see this you're blind. Adhyaropapavada is just a technical name that SSS chose to facilitate understanding, its the same as neti neti, you're just forcing here to criticize SSS,

the self has no 'uncompounded nature' whatsoever, Shankara said that all names : brahman, sat, cit, etc are just to point out the Self, those are not real things, they're just words

its starting to get funny: if only one thing exists, then there's no relationship possible at all, i'll have to say again and again, the illusion is NOT-SUBSTANTIAL, so there's no causal relationship between its substratum and the illusion, Its mithya-jñana, a false notion, and a false notion does not require a corresponding false objecct, there's only one Thing (vastu): Brahman

There's no fallacies also, I already responded everything, you cannot understand because you think that an illusion is substantial, when its only a false notion, thats why you cannot distinguish vyavahara from paramartha.

[Anonymous No.22199550]

>>22199449
>So what matters is quantity then?
No, but you just lied
>(theres no jivatman independent of adhyasa)
False, there is no jivatman *that is perceived as being real* independent of adhyasa but once adhyasa is corrected the jivatman continues and is rightfully perceiving as being a (false) appearance due to prarabdha-karma until death, which Shankara compares to an arrow being fired which has to run its course, this is preciously because samsara is not conjured up by a subjective ignorance but is cast by Brahman, otherwise there would be no prarabdha-karma.

>Adhyaropa - apavada, that's the key
Shankara never says it supersedes or is more important than other methods, that belief is SSS's own imagination (svakapola kalpita)

[Anonymous No.22199582]

>>22199473
>all those methods are just particularizations of adhyaropa apavada, if you cant see this you're blind.
That's an ad hominem fallacy, you cannot back this up with real arguments or citations so you say "if you don't agree then.... you are LE BAD"

>the self has no 'uncompounded nature' whatsoever,
Yes it does, and in Shankara's bhashya on the Taittiriya verse about the 3 aspects of Brahman he says that each component points to an hints at an aspect of this nature via negation. If the Self in its true nature wasn't self-disclosing (self-luminous) for example, then knowing and realizing It would be completely impossible.

>its starting to get funny: if only one thing exists, then there's no relationship possible at all
There is no relation of two existing things, Shankara's position is that the One through its inherent power is the basis of a beginningless false image of itself, like the moon always being reflected in a body of water as the moon-in-the-water without beginning.

>There's no fallacies also,
Wrong, as I pointed out you committed the fallacy of ignoratio enlenchi by ignoring and not responding to the central point, and then you just committed the additional fallacy of ad hominem, you seem to rely on fallacies

[Anonymous No.22199674]

>>22199582
>If the Self in its true nature wasn't self-disclosing (self-luminous) for example, then knowing and realizing It would be completely impossible.
1) The Self is always known by Itself and never by anything else, the Buddhi cannot know it

2) If the Self doesn't have the nature of being self-luminous (self-knowing) then it's never known by Itself or anything else and moksha is impossible

3) Thus it's not true that Brahman does not have any uncompounded nature

QED

[Anonymous No.22199679]

>>22199582
>Yes it does,
>Shankara said that all names : brahman, sat, cit, etc are just to point out the Self, those are not real things, they're just words
> One through its inherent power is the basis of a beginningless false image of itself,
"Many, indeed, are the forms of Brahman produced by conditions of name and form, but none in reality. "
"Truly so; but even there, the Brahman is defined by the words ‘knowledge, etc.,’ only with reference to the limitations of mind, body and senses, "
(kena bh2.9)

in adhyasabhashya shankara says: "all empirical dealings is under this fundamental superimposition (adhyasa)" this implies even the vedantic enquiry with all its devices (brahman, shakti, sakshi, etc, etc etc). So you cannot extend this to paramartha.

[Anonymous No.22199790]

>>22199679
>Shankara said that all names : brahman, sat, cit, etc are just to point out the Self, those are not real things, they're just words
That doesnt mean that Brahman has no uncompounded nature, it just means that those words don't delimit it or establish its limit

>"Many, indeed, are the forms of Brahman produced by conditions of name and form, but none in reality. "
They aren't produce as a reality, they are projected as insubstantial illusion, big difference

>"Truly so; but even there, the Brahman is defined by the words ‘knowledge, etc.,’ only with reference to the limitations of mind, body and senses, "(kena bh2.9)
That is in the context of pointing out the uncompounded self-luminous Brahman to the ignorant who typically misunderstand what intellect and knowledge are, see >>22199674 for irrefutable proof of why Brahman has an uncompounded nature

>in adhyasabhashya shankara says: "all empirical dealings is under this fundamental superimposition (adhyasa)"
For ignorant being it is, a jnani doesn't superimpose but is aware of empirical dealings as a false illusion. It is also equally true to say "all empirical dealings is under this fundamental conjuring of samsara as illusion by brahman"
>this implies even the vedantic enquiry with all its devices (brahman, shakti, sakshi, etc, etc etc). So you cannot extend this to paramartha.
Already refuted by Shankara in BSSB 1-4-3 where he refutes the denial of a paramarthic sakti inherent in Brahman by pointing out the unacceptable consequences of doing so

[Anonymous No.22199876]

Guys: Theravada or Mahayana. Which do I pick?

[Anonymous No.22199914]

>>22199876
Theravada sutta pitaka
Nagarjuna instead of the abhidhamma

Simple as

[Anonymous No.22200407]

>>22199790
already replied to you on the other thread.
i i'm tired of repeating myself

the fact that (1) every empirical dealing is within ignorance, so vyavahara, (2) shakti as the power of brahman creating the world is an empirical dealing, so within purview of ignorance: vyavahara.
When the effect is recognized as unreal, Brahman simply ceases to be a cause, causality itself is sublated, so your shakti never existed to begin with. It only appears to the ignorant. Not to the jñani

[Anonymous No.22200497]

>>22198747
no , you are gay

>>22198746
and you are an ape

>>22195223
buddha is trash

[Anonymous No.22201328]

>>22200407
>the fact that (1) every empirical dealing is within ignorance, so vyavahara, (2) shakti as the power of brahman creating the world is an empirical dealing, so within purview of ignorance: vyavahara.
Wrong, shakti as the power of Brahman projecting the world is the SOURCE of all empirical dealing
>When the effect is recognized as unreal, Brahman simply ceases to be a cause, causality itself is sublated
this was already refuted by Shankara in BSSB 1-4-3 where he criticizes as illogical the denial of Brahman having a paramarthic sakti inherent in Itself

[Anonymous No.22201449]

Advautist are so cringe they're having the same fight in two threads at the same time, you can't make this shit up

[Anonymous No.22201468]

>>22187608
>Dhammachakkavatana sutta
>Anatta sutta
>Udana
>Atthakavagga
>Agnivaccagotta sutta
>Kaccanagotta sutta
>Kalama sutta
>Malunkya sutta
>Satipatthana sutta

[Anonymous No.22201686]

>>22194357
Based chinese monk mogging these indians

[Anonymous No.22202632]

>>22200497
based retard

[Anonymous No.22202634]

>>22187608
>>Naga's mmk
>Naga's 70
Not buddhism

[Anonymous No.22202654]

>>22202634
Seething abhidharmist

[Anonymous No.22203177]

this shit is so embarrassing man
just forgive your parents already for forcing you to spend your sunday mornings in church

[Anonymous No.22203203]

>>22187543
>Nagarjuna's mulamadhyamakakarika, Vigrahavyavartani and sunyatasaptati
> Buddhaghosa or the Abhidhamma
Buddhistbro why does it feel like your cat walked across your keyboard as you tried to write this?

[Anonymous No.22203361]

>>22203203
tbf books with long titles do not pertain to buddhism in the first place

books in buddhism have titles like https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Saṃyutta_Nikāya

[Anonymous No.22203561]

>>22203203
The English titles are even longer: the fundamental verses of the middle way
The dispeller of disputations.
The 70 stanzas on emptiness

Nagarjuna and Buddhaghosa are names of people

Abhidhamma is a Buddhist theoretical system.
>>22203361
See
>>22202654

[Anonymous No.22203585]

>>22187543
In the majority of suttas of the Pali Canon, Gautama explicitly refutes positions that Nagarjuna takes to be valid by dialectical reasoning. That there are a few suttas which affirm similar problems that Nagarjuna dealt with is like a drop of water into a pool.

[Anonymous No.22203788]

>>22203585
Atthakavagga is likely the most archaic portion of the PC and it agrees with Naga

Please cite somewhere outside of the Abhidhamma that disagrees with Naga

[Anonymous No.22203795]

>>22203177
>out of touch Christian still refusing to come to terms with the modern world

[Anonymous No.22203880]

>>22203177
I'm from a Buddhist background dear

[Anonymous No.22203886]

>>22203561
Why are they like that?

[Anonymous No.22203916]

>>22203880
So you're like Japanese or Tibetan for sure, right?

[Anonymous No.22203946]

>>22203916
I'm ethnically Buddhist.
>>22203886
That's what the books are about. In Sanskrit their names aren't THAT long

[Anonymous No.22203978]

>>22203946
state your place of residence young man

[Anonymous No.22203988]

>>22203978
Unironically Africa

[Anonymous No.22203995]

>>22187543
vectorbundles makes things exist.
singular vectors are a medium.
a closed loop of many vectors are a concept.
Buddha realized the linguistic structure and logic requirements of modern science and truth detection before he had done any experiments himself.
therefore, his true enlightenment was to see that he was in fact, relatively retarded compared to the truth and that people would be even more retarded to regard him as the truth itself.
Buddha was a Grugpilled neet that foresaw the potential of the infinite Redpilled Chad.
Siddharta Gautama was an eastern-gothic prince, and, unironically, the founder of the nordic chad "Yes" meme.
>You claim to know THE answer?
>Yes.

[Anonymous No.22204005]

>>22203995
this is all false

[Anonymous No.22204034]

>>22187915
>folks
ngmi

[Anonymous No.22204052]

>>22204005
k

[Anonymous No.22204072]

>>22204052
nothing cringier that an undergrad atheist clinging to mathematical realism

[Anonymous No.22204082]

And the only YES meme the buddha says is that it's okay to die and not getting reborn.

[Anonymous No.22204095]

>>22204072
american terms are cringe.
you're a creature of your own exposure.

[Anonymous No.22204208]

>>22187543
>Belaṭṭhaputta

HAHAHAAA BELA DA PUTA LMAO

[Anonymous No.22204606]

Should I read shantideva