The Upanishads

[Anonymous No.11577383]

Anyone into this philosophy? I read that Schopenhauer had a thing for the Sirre Akbar (the greatest secret), calling it "superhuman in concepts, a production of the highest human wisdom".

So I decided to read the Greatest Secret, and I must say, I am already inclined to agree with him. Such tranquil and pleasant reading, I highly recommend it to anyone that is not familiar with it.

Those who are please share your thoughts on it

[Anonymous No.11577404]

>>11577383
Love means the transformation of the center. An egoist considers himself to be the center. He says, ”I must be saved even at the cost of the whole world. Even if it is necessary to destroy all, I will save myself.” The ego is aggressive, and so when the egoist shows his love for someone he destroys him; he tries to destroy the other’s individuality. In this kind of false love-making countless people have lost their individuality.

[Anonymous No.11577476]

>>11577383
>the Sirre Akbar

what is that. looks like it is some arabic translation of it.

[Anonymous No.11577494]

>>11577476
Its Persian

[Anonymous No.11577525]

>>11577494
why not just check the indian version?

[Anonymous No.11577575]

>>11577404
So keep on searching your heart to ascertain whether or not it has yet become filled with love. And
if you find that it is still not filled with love, that it is still a desert where the rain has not yet fallen,
then be quick to get rid of your head, to get rid of your ego. This is what meditation is; this is what
prayer is. The art of severing the head, of getting rid of the ego, is yoga. No sooner does your ego
disappear, no sooner do your thoughts go, than love begins to pour into your heart. God showers
continuously, but your head has blocked the access to your heart.

[Anonymous No.11577621]

>>11577525
I cannot into Sanskrit

[Anonymous No.11577642]

>>11577383
Is English your first language OP? Your post gives the impression that it's not.

>Anyone into this philosophy? I read that Schopenhauer had a thing for the Sirre Akbar (the greatest secret), calling it "superhuman in concepts, a production of the highest human wisdom".

Yes, people on /lit/ enjoy studying it. Some of us like to read the commentaries on the Upanishads by different people. The Upanishads help form the basis of the Hindu school of thought known as Vedanta. Much of the same ideas talked about in the Upanishads are explored more at length in the Vedanta texts;

[Anonymous No.11577673]

>>11577383
>a production of the highest human wisdom".
it is created by a human, it is not superhuman

[Anonymous No.11577679]

>>11577404
this is what hedonists clinging to love believe

[Anonymous No.11577700]

>>11577621
i mean a translation from the indian version, not from the arabic one.

[Anonymous No.11577706]

>>11577673
>it is created by a human, it is not superhuman

The Hindus themselves regard the Upanishads as being non-human in their origin. It is Schopenhauer who misunderstood them as being man-made.

[Anonymous No.11577740]

>>11577706
The wisdom of the Vedic literature is considered eternal, but the versions we have now were written by particular rishis at particular times. So yes, they're not of human origin, but they aren't viewed as if the written words are what God itself said verbatim, especially since there are lots of different textual lineages due to the writings being so old.

At least, that's my understanding. If not, I have to wonder how the existence of different recensions like the black and white yajurveda are explained

[Anonymous No.11577754]

>>11577740
>At least, that's my understanding

Yes that's correct.

[Anonymous No.11577780]

>>11577642
No it is not, but whats the deal?

[Anonymous No.11577813]

>>11577404
> the absolute state of cuckolds

[Anonymous No.11577824]

>>11577700
Read the one translated by Joan mascaro. It was translated from sanskrit and aparently it is the canon translation

[Anonymous No.11577841]

>>11577780
Your English is actually very good anon

[Anonymous No.11577863]

>>11577679
>this is how stoics clinging to suppress their emotions put forth a point about love

>>11577813
Is this the brilliance of Stirner?

[Anonymous No.11577900]

>>11577863
Yes faggot get SPOOKED BERD

[Anonymous No.11577919]

>>11577824
Don't get Mascaro's, he's notoriously loose. There is no such thing as a 'canon translation' in any case. Penguin also print Valerie Roebuck's translation which is more accurate, not abridged, and has copious notes. Oxford prints Patrick Olivelle's translation which is highly regarded, also with useful notes. For a strongly Advaita Vedanta interpretation see Swami Nikhilananda's translation. For selected Upanishads with the commentary of the premium Advaita philosopher Shankara, see Swami Gambhirananda's two-volume 'Eight Upanishads' and his 'Chandogya Upanishad.'

[Anonymous No.11577948]

>>11577780

There is no problem. It's just that the Upanishads are linked to a bunch of other ideas and concepts talked about on /lit/ and it's unclear to what extent you were aware of this. The Upanishads themselves form the end-portions of the Vedic texts which form the basis of Hinduism. The concepts that one finds when reading the Upanishads are further discussed, debated and explained at length in the Hindu school of thought 'Vedanta'

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

Here are some examples of Vedanta texts that you can read online (very similar to the Upanishads)

https://realization.org/p/ashtavakra-gita/richards.ashtavakra-gita/richards.ashtavakra-gita.html

http://shiningworld.com/site/files/pdfs/publications/scripture/avadhuta_gita.pdf

There are many broad parallels between what the Upanishads talk about and other eastern doctrines such as Daoism and Buddhism. The author Rene Guenon talks about this extensively in his books.

[Anonymous No.11577967]

>>11577383
What book are you talking about? I don't understand. Did you read the Upanishads?

t.noob

[Anonymous No.11578123]

>>11577948
No I was unaware of that, I am a total uber noob on this board and reading this makes me feel ashamed.

[Anonymous No.11579432]

The Vedas are not "philosophy". They are the Final Authority. Perform daily rituals and live a long life.

[Anonymous No.11579439]

Shankara and the Upanishads has the ability to make me have religious experiences without even meditating or praying. Just reading the words and contemplating that puts in a weird state of mind that is oddly clear.

[Anonymous No.11579447]

>>11577948
>there are many parallels between the original and its rip-offs

[Anonymous No.11579487]

>>11579439
Thats because God is absolute. Krsna is not different from His words; so when reading His books (hinduism do states God himself wrote the Vedas) you're actually in communion with God

[Anonymous No.11579565]

>>11579447
I won't try to argue Buddhism in its origin wasn't a ripoff but all the facts and evidence points to Daoism and Sufism coming up with those ideas on their independently

[Anonymous No.11579655]

>>11579432
who said so? the upanishads are not the vedas

[Anonymous No.11579697]

>>11577476
It is arabic indeed. سر أكبر

[Anonymous No.11579723]

>>11579655
The Upanishads are the most important part of the Vedas.

[Anonymous No.11579888]

>>11579723
well yes, but theyre a late part that is philosophic. the basic vedas are something quite broader than what the upanishads are.

[Anonymous No.11581113]

I like the pancaagni vidyaa from the candogya upanisad. I highly recommend you G.V. Iyer's movie on Shankara Acarya. Its on jewtube even

[Anonymous No.11581864]

I really don't get the big deal. All I read is the same old "everything is One, there is no principium individuationis" bullshit in different formulations. Not even trying to be a dick, I just don't get it. Saying everything is One, the Absolute, your senses are lying, etc. is het easiest thing to do, it just amounts to "existence exists" or "there is existence, and nothing besides". Well, no shit. It doesn't give you any actual knowledge. Analytic a priori.

[Anonymous No.11582165]

>>11581864
at some point in life you have to face that fact as more than an intellectual game. these books are an intro to it, so whe that happens you dont derail and fall with the reality that your mind built as it adapted to the social world.

[Anonymous No.11583380]

>>11581864

Because it involves an intellectual grasping of subtle concepts that come (if not from instruction from a teacher) from closely studying the texts and then meditating on them. It's not something you can glean from wikipedia summaries. It's something you have to conceptually grasp, and then personally prode into the very nature of existence and your own consciousness to verify if it's true.

In case you are actually interested in this and are not just shitposting try reading the Ashtavakra Gita linked here >>11577948, it 'holds your hand' a lot more so than other texts.

[Anonymous No.11583389]

>>11583380
*probe (as in look inward)

[Anonymous No.11584907]

>>11581864
Fools are really incapable of seeing the most self evident truth. Dont read Scripture. Its wasted on you

[Anonymous No.11584933]

What do you goys think of Nikhilananda's translations?

[Anonymous No.11585079]

>>11581864
As >>11582165 says, it has to be experienced. The biggest and most obvious secrets protect themselves because they cannot be understood without direct experience. The drop merging into the ocean can be referring to perhaps the profoundest experience possible or it could be empty poetry with no substance depending on who’s talking about it.

[Anonymous No.11585099]

>>11581864
atma is the centrality of your consciousness, things are One not because woah man... cause they're One, but because the center in which the All is disclosed is One: the atman, the Self, the apperceptive unity of the subject

you bring up Kant and don't even see the obvious parallels between the transcendental unity of apperception and the atman ("that by which the eyes see, that by which the ears hear...")? come on mane

[Anonymous No.11585661]

>>11584933
I haven't read it but it's a decent choice. He was a part of the Ramakrishna movement but not everyone affiliated with it promotes a neovedanta spin. He was a direct disciple of Ramakrishna's wife which is a good thing and his translations of the Gita and Ramakrishna's gospel are widely regarded as being of a high quality. He presents the Upanishads from an Advaita persepctive which I personally agree with but if you are interested in a translation that doesn't take one view or another (not a good idea imo) he is not the right choice. Some anon compiled this chart of all the English translations and which ones they include. If you want the most complete english translation that has the most Upanishads (without a lengthy and detailed commentary e.g. Shankara's) without any parts omitted that would probably be Radnakrishnan's (who also has an advaita perspective).

[Anonymous No.11586000]

I don't really understand how Eastern thought works at all. Can someone clarify this at least a bit for me?
You've got the two main epics which are the Mahabharata and the Ramayana. One of the books of the Mahabharata (and the only shit I've read) is the Bagavad Gita, but there's also the Upanishads and the Vedic texts which I don't really have an idea what they are about and how they relate to each other. What am I supposed to do if I want to get a broad understanding of their philosophy? Read the Mahabarata and the Ramayana first then get into whatever the fuck the Upanishads are? Get a broad understanding of vedic texts before diving in? I remember Krishna kinda shitting on Vedic texts on the Gita but then again the translation I used was a dogshit tier one that I bought for a buck so I don't know how trustworthy my source is. Please recommend me some shit, I don't really mind reading thousands of pages so I'm not even ruling out reading their long ass epics.

[Anonymous No.11586063]

>>11585661
Thanks anon

[Anonymous No.11586315]

>>11586000

The Sruti (Vedas + principal Upanishads) form the basis of Hinduism and are regarded as infallible sources of doctrine that are of non-human origin. The Smriti includes most of the early major non-Sruti texts, including the two itihasas (Mahabharata + Ramayana) Smriti are regarded as important texts that are based on and which synthesize the lessons of Sruti but they are not infallible. The six major orthodox schools of thought in Hinduism (Darshanas) all derive in one way or another from the Sruti, the most important and influential Darshana historically would be Vedanta, in that it establishes the central meaning and implication of the Sruti (in particular the nature of the relation between the supreme godhead and the self) which becomes the overall arching framework and background that all other thought and activity take place within. Historically non-dualism (advaita) and qualified non-dualism (vishitadvaita) were the most influential schools (and the difference between them is largely a matter of emphasis) although dualism (dvaita) also arose in the 13th century, there were also a number of other closely related spinoff Vedanta schools that combined or modified these one. It's highly recommended that you start with Guenon's 'Introduction to the Study of the Hindu Doctrines' which contains a huge amount of valuable lessons and background info and teaches you many of the Sanskrit terms you will need to learn. After that you have two options, if you just want a surface understanding read a translation of the Upanishads without an in-depth commentary and then a few other texts like the Bhagavad-Gita and some Puranas/Agamas and Vedanta texts.

If you want to aquire a profound and subtle understanding of Hindu metaphysics you need to deeply study Vedanta. You can choose any school but I recommend Advaita as it was the first, one of the most influential and has a huge number of texts. It's not necessary (although his intro book is) but it's highly recommended that after you read 'intro to hindu etc' that you then read Guenon's 'Man and His Becoming According to the Vedanta' as this will give you a broad overview of the Vedantic framework and teaches you more of the related word/ideas that you will need to know. Then you are ready to read the core Advaita texts which are Adi Shankara's commentaries on the Prasthanatrayi (Principal Upanishads+Brahma Sutras+Bhagavad-Gita, best read in that order), Gambhirananda's and Madhavananda's translations recommended. You don't have to read all the Upanishad commentaries but the more the better. Gamb. has a 2-part compilation with 8 of the commentaries and then each author translated a separate Chandogya and Brihadaranyaka commentary. Guenon's two books plus all the Prasthanatrayi commentaries is around 3500+ pages already

[Anonymous No.11586325]

>>11586000
>>11586315

Then you have all the secondary Vedanta texts, reading more will round out and complement your understanding (Atma Bodha, Upadesasahasri, Vivekachudamani, Aparokshanubuti, Yoga Vasistha, Ashtavakra Gita, Avadhuta Gita, Drg-Drs-Viveka, Vedantasara, Advaita Bodha Deepika, Kaivalya Navaneeta etc). Reading some of these as breaks inbetween Shankara's works is fine too. After these you have hundreds of other good texts which although influenced by and incorporating Vedanta are not specifically Vedanta texts themsleves (includes all the Puranas and Agamas, Yoga texts like Yoga Sutras and Yoga Yajnavalkya, and Tantric texts like Shiva Sutras and Tantrasara). The non-Vedanta texts sometimes differ in certain doctrinal aspects from Vedanta but reading the Prasthanatrayi will allow you to understand how these are all slightly different orthodox expositions of the same starting principles. Finally you have the recorded talks of modern gurus from the 19th and 20th centuries (best are Ramakrishna, Ramana Maharshi and Nisargadatta Maharaj). You don't have to read everything I listed but for a great understanding at a minimum read Guenon's two books, most or all of the Prasthanatrayi commentaries, half a dozen Vedanta texts and as many non-Vedanta texts, a few Guru talks will help but are optional. Everything I just listed can be found online free through google, lib-gen and archive.org, searching the name of the translator will sometimes bring it up when the name of the text has no result.

[Anonymous No.11586720]

>>11579447
Many paths to the same truth, brother

and I just grew a beard from saying that

[Anonymous No.11586881]

>>11586315
TLDR?

[Anonymous No.11586887]

>>11586325
>a few Guru talks
Do you know any living gurus who I could watch videos of/listen to talks of?

[Anonymous No.11587095]

>>11585661
Radhakrishnan's translation has a very extensive commentary actually, but it's his own. He draws on Shankara a lot, though. I have read a critical review of Nikhilananda's translation which highlighted the strong Advaita bias, so it does depend if you agree with that perspective. Like with any difficult translated text I would use at least two translations to get the different interpretations.

[Anonymous No.11587151]

>>11586887
Different anon here. I watch Swami Sarvapriyananda, he's a monk at the Vedanta society of New York. He recently released a video on choosing a guru.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AuOHxzJbhHU

I also watch Jay Lakhani, he's not a monk but a Hindu apologist who explains an Advaita Vedanta perspective in layman's terms. He's a big proponent of modernising Hinduism, so he's not the most traditional. He has a good video explaining the Vedas, Upanishads and Bhagavad Gita.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cuc04Og5UAo

[Anonymous No.11587164]

>>11587151
Thanks

[Anonymous No.11587522]

>>11586881
Ashtavakra Gita is a TLDR of Advaita Vedanta, a link to it has already been posted in this thread

[Anonymous No.11588274]

best translation? is this one alright as a first? any rec for historical context?

[Anonymous No.11588463]

>>11588274
It looks like it has most of the principle Upanishads but in the reviews listed in the amazon blurb it says 'Particularly interesting are Olivelle's remarks on human physiology and psychology'. I would steer you away from it because of that, the Upanishads have nothing to do with psychology and reading footnotes and annotations that try to link it to psychology etc will just distort it and make you form an inaccurate understanding of them. If you are not trying to read 2000+ pages of Vedanta commentaries but want a high quality translation that has unabridged versions of all the principal Upanishads I'd recommend Radnakrishnan's 'The Principal Upanishads' which has all the principal ones plus a few other of the good minor ones all in one book with good notes/commentary.

For context I'd recommend Guenon's Intro to the Study of Hindu Doctrines which explains most of the background social/religious/metaphysical knowledge you should know. The actual historical events and historical development of classical India is mostly irrelevant to understanding the Upanishads.

[Anonymous No.11588692]

>>11588274
Don't listen to that other anon, he's a Guenonist with no legitimate interest in Hinduism. Going out of your way to IGNORE historical context is pathetic. Guenon is fine if you want 19th century mysticism, but not Hinduism. In his Introduction, etc. he doesn't even explain reincarnation. Unlike that anon, I own that translation and it's very good, there's a great introduction about the ritual and philosophical background of the Upanishads. There are plenty of notes in the back, but these are totally optional and don't intrude on the text, which is an excellent format.

The edition in your pic has the original Sanskrit in Devanagari on facing pages. You can buy the translation alone for much cheaper as an Oxford World Classics paperback. Like any foreign text, there isn't a single best translation, so get at least two and compare any differences. A reasonably orthodox Advaita translation is that of Swami Nikhilananda.

[Anonymous No.11588704]

>>11588463
meh, is guenon really relevant? or at least accurate? i think he is part of a time that over mystified 'the east'. i mean, nothing wrong with that if thats what one wants, but there are other, more recent, approaches that make that one kinda obsolete imo. and maybe the historical context is irrelevant for an esoteric approach, but the thing didnt come out of nowhere nor from the heavens destined to enlighten supernatural beings, it is a fundamental step in the development of the vedic tradition, which was to become the base for indian civilization as a whole. all human creations take shape in a historical context that is, imo, basic for the understanding, not just of the content of those creations, but for their role in human life.

anyway, thanks for the rec, i have that one too in my folder, i think ill read its intro. i also found pic related, looks good as a first intro, as well as ''the sourcebook of indian philosophy'' and ''the philosophy of the upanisads.''

this is a vast field!

[Anonymous No.11588736]

>>11588692
yeah thanks, i did check the notes and they seem optional. and yes of course, i always read as many translations as i can, it is the only way to get some perspective to build ones own view of the work in question.

[Anonymous No.11588882]

So where do I start with my reading?
Ashtavakra then what?
Sorry I'm retarded

[Anonymous No.11589062]

>>11588692
>Don't listen to that other anon, he's a Guenonist with no legitimate interest in Hinduism.

Lmao anon you have no idea what you are talking about, I've read multiple thousands of pages of primary Hindu texts and only a few Guenon books, I've just read and browsed enough 'academic' works about Hinduism to see most of Guenon's criticisms are correct. Most academic works overly focus on the historical and sociological aspects to an extent that it can distort one's undertanding of doctrine. There is nothing wrong with learning about these things but if you actually want to understand Hinduism AS HINDUS THEMSELVES understand it you need to understand the metaphysical and religious significance/meaning behind things like the caste system among many other things, academic works tend to only briefly note the significance of these sorts of things whereas historically this would be the central aspect of it in the mind of Hindus.

>Going out of your way to IGNORE historical context is pathetic.

>t. buttflustered drone in academia who is upset people aren't following the standard model he was taught

The historical circumstances are secondary to understanding the doctrines themselves. Obviously it helps to know the context and how classical Indian civilization arose out of the mix of various peoples but you don't need to know anything about the history of X dynasty or kingdom to understand Hinduism, furthermore the Hindus themselves considered history as cyclic not linear and did not keep extensive records becuase they didn't consider it a big deal.

>Guenon is fine if you want 19th century mysticism, but not Hinduism.

You seem to know little about Guenon, he bases all of the ideas in his writings on primary texts and cites them constantly. Secondly when his books have nothing to do with 19th century mysticism, he just tries to explain Hindu doctrines intellectually in a way that makes it accessible to westerners.

>In his Introduction, etc. he doesn't even explain reincarnation.

His book is not an overview of Hinduism that explains every little detail, it's exactly what its name says, an intro to studying it. He explains the context that it's helpful for you to know and then you find out the rest from reading the primary texts; If you start out with the Upanishads or the Gita almost all commentaries and decent translations explain what they teach about transmigratory existence (the word reincarnation does not appear in the Upanishads).

[Anonymous No.11589118]

>>11588704
Yes, he is quite good, an entire portion of his intro book is just explaining ways in which a western education and mentality can cause one to misunderstand eastern concepts that you should be wary of. He is meticulous with his words and has the mind of a mathematician. He knows academia from the inside, having studied philosophy and advanced mathematics and he also used to teach philosophy. Unlike most academic works he explains each aspect of Hinduism not as a special separate subject but in how all of them fit into the overall religious and metaphysical understanding, which is how Hindus themselves see it. He does not ignore the role of the Vedic tradition but to the contrary extensively talks about its importance and role in shaping it. He just criticizes at times academia, western philosophy and occultism and so naturally there are a whole host of butt-hurt people who strawman and misrepresent him constantly out of spite. He also does not 'mystify' the east but is careful to explain that mysticism essentially implies a passive experience of a religious 'mystery' or 'experience' whereas the Hindu doctrines especially Vedanta and Tantra are generally more of an intellectual thing that you have to actively focus on, wrap your head around and put effort into understanding, just like philosophy.

[Anonymous No.11589222]

Is there a Hinduism chart? I just want a simple to digest chart. I'm always swimming in translation recommendations and can't seem to keep it straight.

[Anonymous No.11589288]

>>11588882
If you want an extensive guide to reading the primary texts with a focus on Vedanta particularly you'll find that here
>>11586325
>>11586315

It all depends on how in-depth you want to go. Ashtavakra Gita is a good TLDR for advaita specifically. Guenon's intro book is very good and should be read next as it explains the context and relation of all the main schools of thought as well as many of the sanskrit words you will need to learn. The Upanishads and Bhagavad-Gita should definitely be read early on, there are a range of simple to in-depth commentaries/translations with some of the simpliest being Easwaran and some of the most dense and complicated (but most fascinating) being Shankara's or Ramanuja's.

If you want to read more Vedanta texts but not super dense Shankara commentaries some more shorter and easy ones are Atma Bodha, Avadhuta Gita, Vedantasara and Upadesasahasri. Medium difficulty/technicalness would be Vivekachudamani, Ribhu Gita and Aparokshanubuti. More technical/heady/long ones would be Advaita Bodha Deepika, Kaivalya Navaneeta, Yoga Vasistha, Tripura Rahasya and Drg-Drsa-Viveka. It's a good idea to also read non-vedanta texts to broaden your understanding, some are listed in the guide I already quoted. There is nothing wrong with looking up words that you don't know but if you are doing that 6-7 times a page it means you should probably switch to an easier text. The more primary texts you read though the more you pick up and learn all the Sanskrit terms used and the easier it becomes.

[Anonymous No.11589292]

>>11589222
It's in the works

[Anonymous No.11589361]

I think this qualifies as "empty depth".

>If those who lead you say to you, 'See, the kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, 'It is in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather, the kingdom is inside of you, and it is outside of you. When you come to know yourselves, then you will become known, and you will realize that it is you who are the sons of the living father. But if you will not know yourselves, you dwell in poverty and it is you who are that poverty.

[Anonymous No.11589393]

>>11589361
Nothing empty about this, man will pseuds stop acting like their uninformed opinions are sancrosanct

[Anonymous No.11589490]

>>11589292
Excellent.

[Anonymous No.11589491]

>>11589062
Ok dude, I can see you've subscribed to a school of thought and won't budge an inch from it. But please drop the pretence that Guenon and yourself have some unfiltered access to the primary texts that everyone else misses.

I'll address one or two things directly though

>but if you actually want to understand Hinduism AS HINDUS THEMSELVES understand it you need to understand the metaphysical and religious significance/meaning behind things like the caste system
And yet you keep repeating "the primary texts" as if the entire religious system comes from the texts alone with no cultural or historical context.

>academic works tend to only briefly note the significance of these sorts of things
This is so wrong that I have no idea where you got it from. Academic analyses of Hinduism constantly deal with caste and jati, just look at the index of any introductory book on Hinduism.

[Anonymous No.11589505]

>>11589361
But that's from the Gospel of Thomas, not the Upanishads.

[Anonymous No.11589552]

r8 this image

[Anonymous No.11589618]

>>11589505

I know. I posted it since the Upanishads are a perfect example of the obscurantism it describes.

[Anonymous No.11589621]

>>11589552
the first half is a decent exposition of Advaita but the argueing about Kant is an unnecessary addition to it imo

[Anonymous No.11589643]

>>11589552
Read Rene Guénon's Introduction to the Study of the Hindu Doctrines. Unlike Western Kantians and historical materialists like Sam Harris, Guénon is a strict adherent of Adi Shankara (pbuh), and they have exactly the same metaphysical doctrines as both the writers of the ancient Vedic texts and the prophet Muhammad. Of course, you will eventually have to convert to Islam to understand Hindu philosophy in its true essence, but that will come later, after you have read all of Guénon's writings and helped me fend off the Theosophical spies who beset me at all hours of the day and night. I recommend that you read Guénon's Theosophy: History of a Pseudo-Religion before beginning your studies as it will help you to understand that Kant was a Theosophist and historians like Stephen Pinker are helping Theosophists to climb in my bedroom windows at night and troll my threads.

[Anonymous No.11589654]

>>11589643
>helped me fend off the Theosophical spies who beset me at all hours of the day and night
>Theosophists climb in my bedroom windows at night and troll my threads.

[Anonymous No.11589919]

>>11589643
Funny pasta but there actually is an unironic and persistent theosophy shill who has been at it on /lit/ for over a year. Of course you already know this but I just thought I'd point it out.

[Anonymous No.11589922]

>>11589618
The Upanishads are not obscurantist you mong, any impression of this by you indicates a failure of conprehension. The language is very precise and specific.

[Anonymous No.11589998]

>>11589922
This, if you can't understand the Upanishads, study harder

[Anonymous No.11590005]

>>11589998

Hence the obscurantism.

[Anonymous No.11590020]

>>11589919
I have not seen any theosophy shills. Just a paranoid traditionaist shill.

[Anonymous No.11590023]

>>11590005
>complex metaphysical ideas are obscurantist because they take work to understand

the absolute state

[Anonymous No.11590186]

>>11590005
If you are struggling, read Adi Shankara's commentaries, he methodically explains the meaning and relevance of every word amd sentence.

[Anonymous No.11590257]

>>11590023
Metaphysics that can be summed up with ancient poetry is hardly complex in the way modern thought is.

[Anonymous No.11590264]

>>11590257
Considering the entire Hegelian system is nothing but the discursive unpacking of the mystic's "All is One", no, I'm afraid not.

[Anonymous No.11590290]

This one time I was fucking this Hindu chick and when she orgasmed she screamed "I am the single consciousness!" and it killed my boner :(

[Anonymous No.11590306]

>>11590290
kek. i'm stealing this

[Anonymous No.11590330]

>>11590257
>complexity = quality
Why is /lit/ so blatantly pseudointellectual?

[Anonymous No.11590392]

Hahahahahahahaha How The Fuck Is Brahman Real Hahahaha Nigga Just Read The Bible Like Nigga Praise Jesus Haha