/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.13274388]

How can Christian theology even compete?

[Anonymous No.13274396]

Poo theology is fucking disgusting

[Anonymous No.13274415]

With Adi Shankara? I guess St. John of the Cross, St. Theresa of Ávila and that German guy Meister Eckhart. Throw in some Heraclitus because why not.

[Anonymous No.13274606]

>>13274396
Have you seen the video with the guy shitting on the street?

Wow what a funny video!

[Anonymous No.13274800]

bump

[Anonymous No.13274875]

>>13274415
>christian
>heraclitus
Let me guess; Aristotle was Christian too? Kek

[Anonymous No.13274897]

>>13274388
Negative psychology vs positive psychology. Christianity makes a better person out of their believer.

[Kierkegaard No.13274922]

>>13274388
Redpill me on the Upanishads. I bought it from amazon but it's only getting into my home in like, a fucking month lmao.

[Anonymous No.13274988]

>>13274922

"The Upanishads ... are among the noblest and most inspired books in the world; in them, the whole of the Indian wisdom is already contained; later teachers could but expand and comment on them, but in no way departed from this original treasure of wisdom." ... "The Upanishads teach the wisdom of Atma, the Supreme Self of all beings; the same divine Life which Philo of Alexandria later called the Logos, the Divine Mind, the collective spiritual consciousness of our universe. They tell us that, while each of us may seem to be a wanderer and exile, lonely, desolate in our world of shadow and of sorrow, we are in reality neither alone nor desolate, but undivided, unseparated rays of the Universal Self, the Logos. What is needed to secure our immortality—an immortality which is still conditional, until this victory is won—is the realization of our oneness with the Supreme Self. The Upanishads show how, step by step, we may mount the golden stairs; they tell us what we must leave behind; what we must gain, as we tread the small, old path; what we must achieve; with the promise that we shall in the fullness of time be initiated into the fullness of that eternal, universal Supreme Self of all beings. "The whole aim of their teachings is this: to point the path by which the personal self may win immortality and divinity, by becoming united with the Higher Self, which always possessed immortality and divinity." - Charles Johnston

[Anonymous No.13274993]

>>13274897
>bliss
>negative
yeah

[Anonymous No.13274996]

>>13274988

The educated man of today is, moreover, completely out of touch with those European modes of thought and those intellectual aspects of the Christian doctrine which are nearest those of the Vedic traditions. A knowledge of modern Christianity will be of little use because the fundamental sentimentality of our times has diminished what was once an intellectual doctrine to a mere morality that can hardly be distinguished from a pragmatic humanism. A European can hardly be said to be adequately prepared for the study of the Vedanta unless he has acquired some knowledge and understanding of at least Plato, Philo, Hermes, Plotinus, the Gospels (especially John), Dionysius, and finally Eckhart who, with the possible exception of Dante, can be regarded from an Indian point of view as the greatest of all Europeans. The Vedanta is not a “philosophy” in the current sense of the word, but only as the word is used in the phrase Philosophia Perennis, and only if we have in mind the Hermetic “philosophy” or that “Wisdom” by whom Boethius was consoled. Modern philosophies are closed systems, employing the method of dialectics, and taking for granted that opposites are mutually exclusive. In modern philosophy things are either so or not so; in eternal philosophy this depends upon our point of view. Metaphysics is not a system, but a consistent doctrine; it is not merely concerned with conditioned and quantitative experience, but with universal possibility. It therefore considers possibilities that may be neither possibilities of manifestation nor in any sense formal, as well as ensembles of possibility that can be realized in a given world. The ultimate reality of metaphysics is a Supreme Identity in which the opposition of all contraries, even of being and not-being, is resolved

- A.K. Coomaraswamy

[Anonymous No.13275035]

>>13274993
In Christianity you are evil, in Buddhism you are the victim of evil. One produces a moral creature, the other produces a victim.

[Anonymous No.13275044]

>>13275035
>he thinks shankara is buddhist

[Anonymous No.13275052]

>>13275044
Neo-vedantism is basically crypto-Buddhism

[Anonymous No.13275056]

>>13275044
Oh shit, I don't know anything about hinduism other than their prophecies are cool.

[Anonymous No.13275059]

>>13275035
>he needs an all powerful god to scare him into being good
Son I am disappoint

[Anonymous No.13275070]

>>13275059
>he thinks people are moral without direction

[Anonymous No.13275073]

>>13275044
Shankara is the most buddhist hindu tho.

[Anonymous No.13275079]

>>13275052
No.

t. Buddhist

[Anonymous No.13275082]

>>13275070
>he thinks scaring people actually makes them good people
It's kind of like larping. You can put on a really good show but underneath it all you're fucking sum. Some people are simply good and worth having around, others aren't

[Anonymous No.13275093]

>>13275059
Good is almost the same word as God, coincidence? I think not. God is good, by being good you are practically a believer in God, since he is all that is good.

[Anonymous No.13275102]

>>13275082
You call me scum when you call for dangerous ideology? The people who are not naturally good can be directed to such.

[Anonymous No.13275109]

>>13275093
Logos is god, and living according to reason (logos) aka virtuously, is what is good. If you can't do that, you're neither human nor good

[Anonymous No.13275115]

>>13275102
I'm not calling *you* scum, but the hypothetical larper version of you. Regardless, the only people interested in molding others to fit their desires are filthy materialists.

[Anonymous No.13275138]

>>13275093
Good needs definition, god needs religion

[Anonymous No.13275282]

>>13275052
>>13275073
Everything that people ascribe to Buddhist influence in the classical Advaita of Shankara can actually be traced back to the pre-Buddhist Upanishads. Later Vedanta schools accept much of Shankara's teachings but add more devotional aspects on top of them, but this devotion is fundamentally either foreign to or is a secondary concern to the primary Upanishads which are much more focused on monasticism and non-devotional intellectual contemplation/meditation. Shankara's Advaita Vedanta is the most direct exegesis of these scriptures and so because of this it only outwardly resembles Buddhism because it is devoid of the emphasis on devotional worship that came to characterize later schools.

[Anonymous No.13275375]

>>13275052
Shankara isn't neovedanta you retard, that's a 19th-20th century phenomena, he lived in the 8th century

[Anonymous No.13275481]

>>13274388
By being the truth.

[Anonymous No.13275517]

>>13274388
>poo skins

yeah nah

[Anonymous No.13275520]

>>13274875
cringe & yikes

[Anonymous No.13275743]

>>13275520
He wasn't. He can be retroactively claimed by Jews, Muslims and even Hindus just as much as Christians like to

[Anonymous No.13276097]

>>13275282
>Everything that people ascribe to Buddhist influence in the classical Advaita of Shankara can actually be traced back to the pre-Buddhist Upanishads
No they can't brainlet, any similarities are obscure and you'd have to make bible-tier extrapolations to come to such conclusions. There's a reason Ramanuja and Madhvacharya (vedantists themselves) accused him of being a crypto-buddhist.

[Anonymous No.13276141]

>>13276097
I challenge you to come up with anything in Shankara's Advaita that you think comes from Buddhism that can't also be found in the Upanishads, and which hasn't already been refuted by pic related. If you had actually read Shankara that accusation becomes self-evidently absurd, there isn't a single element of his thought that he doesn't justify with copious citations from the Upanishads coupled with logical discussions proving that those ideas indeed are the true purport of the text.

Of course you won't be able to though because you haven't actually read him, only Buddhists repeat that line as cope because they are eternally butthurt about him btfoing Buddhism and also about that the Buddhists were never able to refute Advaita.

[Anonymous No.13276225]

>>13276141
lmao did you make that silly pic? you do realize you look like a complete autist in it?

sad isn't it, literally everyone outside of your bubble considers advaita to be a corruption of buddhism (scholars, historians, even goddamn prominent vedantists), yet you're here defending Shankara's honour by going 'debate me bro ha you won't'.

>so this is the power of internet ascetics.....

[Anonymous No.13276329]

>>13276225
>calls someone a brainlet and makes unsubstantiated accusations
>when confronted is unable to back up their accusations with any facts and resorts to flinging ad hominems as cope
Typical

> literally everyone outside of your bubble considers advaita to be a corruption of buddhism
No, that's completely wrong. A number of scholars and experts have rejected the Buddhist influence theory for various reasons. The scholars Plott, Murti, Mahadevan, Radnakrishnan, Dasgupta, Mohanta and Sharma all more or less reject that theory and take the position that Advaita's doctrines come from the Upanishads, and the extent to which they interacted with Mahayana was in the form of engaging with and debating it to draw out and prove the superiority of their own Upanishadic-based doctrines. Even some of the scholars who think they were influenced add the addendum that they were just using Mahayana concepts to explain Upanishadic ideas or reformulating Mahayana arguments and concepts to draw different conclusions. You are trying to falsely imply that it is a consensus that Advaita took its doctrines from Buddhism when in actuality this is a hotly debated topic among experts with them being pretty much evenly divided on it.

This is the last desperate line of defense that the Buddhist jumps to when he realizes that Upanishadic teachings predate Buddhism, that during their elaboration by Vedanta many Buddhist teachings were refuted and that Buddhist thinkers were never able to successfully refute Advaita. In their frustration and rage they try to claim that *actually* Advaita got it's ideas from Buddhism and is thus somehow illegitimate, but this line of attack also fails because everyone they can point to as alleged influence can easily be found in the early Upanishads (with some scholars noting this exact point!) and also because the scholars themselves are divided on this question and don't consider it settled one way or another. If you cared about seriously practicing Buddhism you'd stop falling into this trap so easily and give up rage-posting in Advaita threads. This is all the more ironic since early Buddhism patently took so many concepts from the Upanishads.

[Anonymous No.13276350]

>>13274922
Hello, Brazil-anon. :)

[Anonymous No.13276352]

>>13276329
>The scholars.. Dasgupta
>According to S.N. Dasgupta, Shankara and his followers borrowed much of their dialectic form of criticism from the Buddhists. His Brahman was very much like the sunya of Nagarjuna [...] The debts of Shankara to the self-luminosity of the Vijnanavada Buddhism can hardly be overestimated. There seems to be much truth in the accusations against Shankara by Vijnana Bhiksu and others that he was a hidden Buddhist himself. I am led to think that Shankara's philosophy is largely a compound of Vijnanavada and Sunyavada Buddhism with the Upanisad notion of the permanence of self superadded.

lmao lying again?

You still haven't addresses the fact that Ramanuja and Madhvacharya pinned Shankara down as a crypto-buddhist. Yes, the main proponents of Vedanta called him a secret buddhist. lmao.

>If you cared about seriously practicing Buddhism you'd stop falling into this trap so easily and give up rage-posting in Advaita threads
says the temperamental shankarafag posting his own rage-posts going 'WRONG! WRONG!'

[Anonymous No.13276471]

>>13274388
>dinduism

[Anonymous No.13276475]

>>13276352
Okay, I may have been mistaken about Dasgupta, I only included the names of scholars in that list if they seemed to reject the idea that Advaita's ideas comes from Buddhism. Sharma documents this topic extensively in one of his books that I've read and rejects the Buddhist influence argument and he lists some other scholars who do so, I've read some of the positions of other scholars as well. It remains true though that scholars are evenly divided on this question. I originally included Dasgupta because I saw this quote:

>Dasgupta and Mohanta suggest that Buddhism and Shankara's Advaita Vedanta represent "different phases of development of the same non-dualistic metaphysics from the Upanishadic period to the time of Sankara."[39][note 8]
This would clearly imply that whatever the relation of Mahayana and Shankara's Advaita that the ideas stem from the (pre-Buddhist) Upanishads and don't belong to Buddhism. The quote about self-luminosity you posted is clearly wrong as most of the Upanishads unequivocally state the Atma is such both directly and through metaphors including the pre-Buddhist ones.

>You still haven't addresses the fact that Ramanuja and Madhvacharya pinned Shankara down as a crypto-buddhist.
Yes, because they were trying to take Vedanta in a more devotionalistic direction that conflicts with spirit of the Upanishads and Shankara represented a competitor to them and so naturally they would take whatever avenue presented itself whereby they thought they could undermine it. It remains true though that their claims are groundless because all the stuff they accuse of being crypto-Buddhist in Advaita is found in the Upanishads. Monasticism? Enjoined in the pre-Buddhist Upanishads and even the pre-Upanishad portions of the Vedas. Devotional worship? The pre-Buddhist Brihadaranyaka compares the man who worships the Gods as something other than himself to an animal; and several of the Upanishads say there is no multiplicity whatsoever which eliminates the space for serious devotionalism to an other. Rejection of ritual? The Upanishads reject ritual on many occasions and states that it doesn't lead to liberation. All of their accusations are completely groundless because the stuff they claim is crypto-Buddhist is actually found in the Hindu scriptures they are supposed to fully accept, but don't.

>says the temperamental shankarafag posting his own rage-posts going 'WRONG! WRONG!'
You are the one who came into a thread about Vedanta, made accusations, was unable to substantiate them with specifics, misrepresented the consensus of scholars and made a bunch of ad-hominem attacks while I've calmly refuted you and asked you to back up your words which you failed to do.

[Anonymous No.13276481]

>>13274988
>The Upanishads show how, step by step, we may mount the golden stairs
It literally doesn't.
All of hinduism is just rambling contrarian bullshit.

[Anonymous No.13276487]

>>13276141
>>13276475
What is your opinion on Radhakrishnan's Source in Indian Philosophy?

[Anonymous No.13276495]

>>13275052
Bhuddism is basically crypto-shaivism.

[Anonymous No.13276497]

>>13276475
>THEY STOLE OUR THEOLOGY
You can't steal theology, you can only misinterpret it.
Buddhism refined you useless retards and took away your bullshit ritualism.
Then you faggots STILL came and shoved it back into Buddhism.
Satanic bastards.

[Anonymous No.13276559]

>>13274388
Shankara: *hits the chillam* “dood, it’s like, all ONE man ...”
Church fathers: *complex theological discussion on the nature of the trinity, soteriology, free will, connection between feeling/rationale, etc. etc.*

[Anonymous No.13276712]

>>13274996

Yes.

[Anonymous No.13276927]

>>13276559

Shankara is prominently anal and subsumes everything in the broadest terms.

[Anonymous No.13276958]

>>13274388
Nobody in this threads actually read Christian Theology.

If one would read Church Parents such as Pseudo-Dionysus, Maximus the Confessor or even Evagrius Ponticus or Desert Fathers, one would understand how Christian Theology overcomes other system of metaphysics and ontology.

[Anonymous No.13277338]

>>13276481
That's wrong, if you actually read the commentaries by people who know what they are talking about the meaning is very clear
>>13276487
Haven't read it but I have seen it and his other works praised by a lot of people. I have sometimes seen people accuse him and/or his writings of being 'NeoVedanta' but I have asked them before for specific examples of this in his works and I never get a reply.
>>13276497
The Upanishads already condemn ritualism, Buddhism was little more than a restatement of Upanishadic teachings from another perspective; but even this became heavily degenerated as Buddhism fractured into a bunch of different sects to the point that nobody actually knows what he taught. You seem to be letting yourself get angry, not very Buddhist of you tbqh.
>>13276927
Not exactly true, he extensively critiques like 6 or 7 different schools of thought and points out where all of them are illogical. Only some elements of Yoga and Samkhya are subsumed into his system and that's only because those elements are not inconsistent with the Upanishads unlike the other ideas of those schools that they come from.
>>13276559
His writings contain complex theological and philosophical discussions.

[Anonymous No.13277378]

>>13276958
I have not seen any evidence that Christian theology 'overcomes' Hindu theology/metaphysics. None of those thinkers that you list engaged with it in any way. If you have examples though that you think are applicable you're welcome to post them.

[Anonymous No.13277400]

Did Adi Shankara complete the system of Aryan Idealism?

[Anonymous No.13277474]

Why is any philosophy or ontology important when the vast majority of humanity are stupid wasteful chimps that just need strongmen in power to tell them how to feel and what to do?

[Anonymous No.13277487]

>>13277474
Because if you have the correct understanding of the metaphysical world, you can channel the noumenal into the phenomenal and become a ruler of chimps

[Anonymous No.13277501]

>>13277474
Because that strongman need an ascetic adviser by his side to make sure another strongman doesn't come and take his place.

[Anonymous No.13277511]

>>13277400
yes

[Anonymous No.13277515]

>>13277474
Because the vast majority of humanity is irrelevant to your own individual spiritual enlightenment and liberation

[Anonymous No.13277535]

>>13277487
Leadership is only achieved through strength, most leaders in history were equally dumb chimps
>>13277501
That doesn't keep you from failing in health or wealth, and often may encourage failure due to preaching asceticism and modesty
>>13277515
Humans can't be liberated individually or otherwise without profuse knowledge of engineering and the physical sciences to develop a transhuman architecture for themselves. Only then would they be faced with questions regarding truely defining their lives, their being, their purposes, etc.

[Anonymous No.13277542]

>>13277535
>what is soft power
I agree, though. Most figure heads have been aesthetically inclined at best

[Anonymous No.13277548]

>>13277535
>Humans can't be liberated individually or otherwise without profuse knowledge of engineering and the physical sciences to develop a transhuman architecture for themselves.

[Anonymous No.13277595]

>>13277515
This.
>vast majority of humans cant count so it's stupid to do maths
>vast majority of humans are shitheads so it's stupid to ask what is the right course of action
>vast majority of humans dont understand mechanics so its stupid to make aeroplanes
And so on.

[Anonymous No.13277893]

>>13275056
It's actually very similar to Neoplatonism and certain areas of Christian mysticism

[Anonymous No.13278036]

>>13277893
This looks interesting but I have yet to read it, apparently it was authored by a Trappist monk

[Anonymous No.13278709]

>>13277400
there is no aryan race
better give up now if that is your reason to get into hinduism

[Anonymous No.13278774]

>>13278709
Yes and no. There is no single "aryan" race but the Aryan Indo-Europeans and their contribution to Iranian and Vedic civilization as well as them all being distantly related to Europeans are undeniable. Nobody who actually reads the philosophy even really cares about that it's just a meme at this point. That poster himself was referring the meme of completing German idealism.

[Buddha-Saoshyant No.13278818]

What's wrong with ontological dualism?

[Anonymous No.13278843]

>>13274388
it can't
/thread
well, perhaps st francis of assisi but even then that's a stretch

[Anonymous No.13278852]

>>13275115
This.

[Anonymous No.13278854]

>>13275520
>>13275743
Heraclitus definitely wasn't Christian. Cringe and yikes

[Anonymous No.13278880]

>He is gifted with extra-ordinary intelligence, a deeply penetrating mind, critical insight, logical reasoning, philosophical analysis, religious purity, sublimity of renunciation and profound spirituality. His literary excellence makes him shine as a writer of exemplary Sanskrit prose and soul-inspiring philosophico-religious verses.
How was he able to do it lads? It astounds the mind

[Anonymous No.13278892]

>>13278854
>replying with cringe and yikes to a misinterpretation of a misintepretation of a post
cringe and yikes

[Anonymous No.13278904]

[Buddha-Saoshyant No.13278912]

But seriously, why is no one interested in Ontological Dualism anymore?

[Anonymous No.13278929]

>>13278912
By ontological dualism do you mean mind-body dualism?

[Buddha-Saoshyant No.13278952]

>>13278929
I meant more like dualistic cosmology, my bad. More like a god of good (Ahura Mazda) being in continuous war with a god of evil (Ahriman).

[Anonymous No.13278953]

>>13277511
Nice read, where is this from?

[Anonymous No.13278960]

>>13278912
Because you gave it a bad name by acting like a schizo on an anonymous hentai book forum my man

[Anonymous No.13278966]

>>13278953
my diary desu (but unironically)

[Anonymous No.13278977]

>>13278952
Ahh, okay, in that case I don't know why nobody's interested in that. I've got to admit I don't know much but I'll have a read into it.

We're well beyond mind-body dualism so it's kind of a relief you weren't on about that.

[Buddha-Saoshyant No.13278984]

>>13278960
I have good tastes in artwork that is aligned with Ahura Mazda, and likewise, I have good tastes in artwork aligned with Ahriman. Moreover, I am a very good philosopher, and I could beat any philosopher in debate.

I am highly educated, and I am a Buddha-Saoshyant hybrid.

[Buddha-Saoshyant No.13278988]

>>13278977
I got my BS in Neuroscience, and I think mind-body dualism is still valid. Materialism/physicalism is also unfalsifiable.

[Anonymous No.13279004]

>>13278988
substance dualism or property dualism?

[Buddha-Saoshyant No.13279017]

>>13279004
All metaphysics is unfalsifiable. Empirical science actually has nothing really to inform regarding ontological questions. It doesn't matter if it's Eliminativism, Neutral Monism, Double-Aspect Theory, Token or Type-Identity Physicalism, Property Dualism, Substance Dualism, and so much more. Empirical science has nothing to say on these matters. Something like Constructive Empiricism is true.

[Buddha-Saoshyant No.13279045]

>>13279017
Excerpt from Matthew D. Lieberman Ph.D. making my point clearer:

Given a materialist view of the universe, it makes no sense to talk about consciousness or experience at all. We have absolutely no idea what it is about the three pounds of mush between our ears that allows it to perform this trick of being conscious. If you damage one spot in visual cortex, a person will cease to see motion. If you damage another spot, they may lose the ability to see things in the right side of their visual field. But we have no idea why those regions cause us to have conscious experience of motion or the right side of the visual field in the first place. Knowing that an engine can’t run without a particular part is not the same as knowing why it can run because of that part.

[…]I am a neuroscientist and so 99% of the time I behave like a materialist, acknowledging that the mind is real but fully dependent on the brain. But we don’t actually know this. We really don’t. We assume our sense of will is a causal result of the neurochemical processes in our brain, but this is a leap of faith. Perhaps the brain is something like a complex radio receiver that integrates consciousness signals that float around in some form. Perhaps one part of visual cortex is important for decoding the bandwidth that contains motion consciousness and another part of the brain is critical to decoding the bandwith that contains our will. So damage to brain regions may alter our ability to express certain kinds of conscious experience rather than being the causal source of consciousness itself.

[…]I don’t actually believe the radio metaphor of the brain, but I think something like it could account for all of our findings. Its unfalsifiable which is a big no-no in science. But so is the materialist view—its also unfalsifiable. We simply don’t know how to reverse engineer consciousness. Saying that the complexity of the brain explains why we are conscious is just an article of faith—it doesn’t explain anything. We don’t know why our brains are associated with conscious experience and nothing else in the universe besides brains seems to be. Maybe rocks have consciousness but no way of showing this. I don’t believe this—but again, I can’t prove its false.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/social-brain-social-mind/201203/free-will-weighing-truth-and-experience

[Anonymous No.13279072]

>>13279045
Very interesting. Have you looked into/any opinions on Integrated Information Theory at all?

[Anonymous No.13279143]

>>13278709
>there is no aryan race
Cringe.

Time to watch this series buddy
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eOM2fT6tBFE

[Buddha-Saoshyant No.13279158]

>>13279072
I read Christof Koch's Consciousness: Confessions of a Romantic Reductionist (2012). Near the end, he talks about his work with Giulio Tononi in order to devise IIT.

My view on it, from my recollection, is that it was based on a flawed view that consciousness can be reduced to degrees or density of connections. Some studies even point to greater intelligence and maybe metacognitive awareness being due more to fine-tuned, lean connections rather than more numerous and denser synpatic connections. Moreover, some studies point to certain pathways of activity being more important, such as thalamocortical loops, so it's not a matter of the degree of informational processing going on, imo. We know thalamocortical loops are necessary but not sufficient for consciousness.

Hard Problem of Consciousness is a question of sufficiency. I think there is some kind of complex pattern of thalamocortical behavior going on, which we can only learn on the mesoscopic level, which is very hard (computationally speaking).

[Buddha-Saoshyant No.13279169]

>>13279072
>>13279158
Regardless, I do recommend Christof Koch's book. He is both a good man and researcher, and he does spend time on IIT. The book is both a personal memoir and scientific book, and I felt it was one of the few times I enjoyed that mix. His discussion about his love for his dog was also nice.

[Buddha-Saoshyant No.13279175]

>>13279158
>more to fine-tuned, lean connections
more to lean, efficient, and less dense connections*

[Buddha-Saoshyant No.13279186]

>>13279158
>Hard Problem of Consciousness is a question of sufficiency.
The Scientific Issue of Consciousness is a question of sufficiency*
I was typing too fast. Hard Problem of Consciousness is squarely philosophical and has little intersection with science imo except in regards to supervenience.

[Anonymous No.13279238]

Is there no dependent arising in Advaita?

[Anonymous No.13279760]

>>13279238
>Is there no dependent arising in Advaita?
No, there is no need for it. Dependent arising itself can be considered as an alternative explanation for samsara/creation which "passes the buck" onto beginningless cause-and-effect *without* explaining how or why that is the case. Advaita Vedanta has no need for it because the Upanishads provide a sufficient explanation for the cause of relative existence, namely that the Lord through his Maya (effectively a power of His that He exercises) appears as multiform and as creation while remaining in reality immutable and unchanged. One of the only points of similarity are that the karma of Jivas is considered to be withdrawn back into the unmanifest at the end of a cycle of universal manifestation (i.e. the night of Brahma), this karma is then made manifest again with the resumption of the cycle of manifestation and contributes to furthering the continued illusion of relative existence, so in this sense there is a rough equivalent to dependent arising insofar as it is a mechanistic explanation for transmigration and the continued illusion of relative existence; however the Advaitins are able to answer the questions that the Buddha never answered about the cause of dependent arising itself because the earliest Upanishads describe Maya as a power of the Lord.

The second part of the dependent origination formulation "if this ceases to exist, that also ceases to exist" can also be considered to have equivalents in the Vedantic understanding of Liberation; in the understanding of Advaita the Jiva itself shorn of it's limitations or limiting adjuncts is Atma, the Self and Lord Itself; once knowledge of the Self has been attained and ignorance burned away by the fire of understanding, the Atma already existing in It's own nature is merged in It's own nature that was the reality all along. In both Buddhism and Vedanta the dismantlement of the mechanism for continued illusion and relative existence is considered to be sufficient to put an end to the cycle. This Vedantic understanding of liberation is exemplified by such Upanishad verses such as the one below.

>"Regarding this there is the following verse: "Because of attachment, the transmigrating self, together with its work, attains that result to which its subtle body or mind clings. Having exhausted in the other world the results of whatever work it did in this life, it returns from that world to this world for fresh work.’ "Thus does the man who desires transmigrate. But as to the man who does not desire—who is without desire, who is freed from desire, whose desire is satisfied, whose only object of desire is the Self—his organs do not depart. Being Brahman, he merges in Brahman.

- Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad 4.4.6.

[Anonymous No.13279969]

>>13278904
If only something like that were available to the common man as an official part of orthodox Christian teachings in the same way that the Bhagavad-Gita is available to all Hindus as a TLDR of orthodox doctrine, that would go a long ways to reducing atheism and nihilism in western culture, but sadly that's not the case.

[Anonymous No.13279982]

>>13278852
no

[Anonymous No.13280034]

>>13279760
Thank you for the answer. Very interesting!

[Anonymous No.13280241]

>>13279982
yes

[Anonymous No.13280452]

>>13277893
this slaps

[Anonymous No.13280557]

>>13274996
He's pretty much blowing the fuck out of brutish Protestantism. BEGOME GADOLIC XDD!!!

[Anonymous No.13281086]

bump

[Anonymous No.13281224]

>>13280241
>pepe saved from a meme website