[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature


View post   

File: 10 KB, 150x232, 150px-Plotin.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18621303 No.18621303 [Reply] [Original]

*butchers Plato and falsely makes him into a narcissistic crypto-Buddhist*

>> No.18621366

>>18621303
What's Platonism actually supposed to be then?

>> No.18621416

>>18621303
*butchers Plotinus and reveals himself as an utter pseud*

>> No.18621425

>>18621366
Read Aristotle (pbuh). He retroactively refuted Plotinus.

>> No.18621459

>>18621425
Are you able to give a good example of how Aristotle refuted Plotinus?

>> No.18621507
File: 202 KB, 606x731, 1609949155409.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18621507

>>18621303
Based if true.

>> No.18621856

>>18621303
was he the original GIGACHAD?

>> No.18621909

>>18621425
Plotinus relies on Aristotle

>> No.18622458

Yes. I'm sure its Plotinus, who dedicated his whole life and death to Platonism, butchered him, and not you whose butchered Plotinus, you, some utter plebian seminal discharge worth less than nothing. Smfh.
On the other hand, probably good bait.

>> No.18623417

>>18621303
At the very least he recognizes that the immortal soul exists so that puts him above buddhacucks automatically; that being said, his philosophy is still annihilationist and if anything he should be compared to advaita

>> No.18623426
File: 87 KB, 762x1332, nyanappp.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18623426

Should I get initiated into a Buddhist monastic order and then proceed to spend the rest of my days meditating and studying the Neoplatonists as an ascetic monk?

Zeus wills it.

>> No.18623683

>>18621459
Whenever someone uses big vague abstract words, force them to use concrete examples.

>> No.18623701

>>18621303
>narcissistic
Meaningless word for "meanie i don't like"

>> No.18623708

>>18623426
>should I waste my life becoming a death cultist
I don't know anon

>> No.18623716

>>18621303
Whats with the flood of pseuds lately who think Plotinus is even remotely compatible with Buddhism?

>> No.18623719

>>18623708
Everything except becoming a monk seems like a waste to me at this point.

>> No.18623726

>>18623719
Become a monk in an actually legitimate tradition, not glorified nihilism

>> No.18623730

>>18623716
People have actually started reading original Buddhist texts instead of the atheistic, annihilationist versions popularized by Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, etc.

>> No.18623737

>>18623730
>original Buddhist texts
So... Pathetic annihilationism?
Most people on this board are getting tired of pajeet shit by the way, thank guenonfag for that

>> No.18623748

>>18623737
You are not most people on the board

>> No.18624043

>>18623417
There's practically no difference between Buddhists, Advaita, and Plotinus. That they use different terms and have a slightly different emphasis changes nothing.

>> No.18624048

>>18623716
Ananda Coomaraswamy says they're the same. Is he a hack?

>> No.18624053

>>18623748
Neither are you, buddhacuck

>> No.18624061

Annihilationist gang
>Buddhism
>Advaita
>Neoplatonism

Eternalist gang
>Christianity
>Islam
>Vishishtadvaita
>Platonism
>Hermeticism

Who will win?

>> No.18624097

>>18624061
c'mon Eternalists score a goal for Ingerland!

>> No.18624161

>>18621366
>>18622458
There are many people that studied Plato and were never neoplatonist by any means. First of all all the followers of Plato including old, new and medioplatonists.
Xenocrates is probably the closest to Plato among the ancients. People often credited as partially Platonists like Leibniz were not particularly into Plotinus.
In the 19th century Plato was definitely reappraise for himself far from Plotinism. You see it in the works of Victor Cousin or in the Neokantians like Lotze.
I don't even get the complaint. It is now well recognized among specialists that Plotinus-Ammonius made their own school that is, first of all, very distinct from all Platonists before them, and is so different form Plato on various subjects to not warrant the identification (whatever their merits). If you want a contemporary lecture on this, read Luc Brisson (who also reedited Plotinus).

>> No.18624170

>>18624048
>Ananda Coomaraswamy
>Is he a hack?
Yes, 100%.

>> No.18624174

>>18624161
>read Luc Brisson

What do you recommend? I can read french btw.

>> No.18624199

>>18624174
I just read his translation of Plato and Plotinus in the Garnier-Flammarion series. It comes with short introduction to every dialogue/treatise. Plato is much easier being in one volume.

>> No.18624212

>>18624199
I have his complete Plato, but there isn't much commentary in it. I know Luc Brisson supposedly rejects the esoteric/Tubingen school.

>> No.18624228

>>18624212
I think they noticeably shortened the introductions in the single volume for understandable reason. I can't judge the rest of his writings.

>> No.18624348

>>18624043
> There's practically no difference between Buddhists, Advaita, and Plotinus
Nonsense, Advaita and Neoplatonism both accept that the soul is eternal and they both accept that the world cannot arise without some transcendent cause. Buddhism rejects that we have an immortal soul and Buddhism also rejects that a transcendent source is needed to explain the origination of the universe.

>> No.18624678

>>18624348
>Buddhism rejects that we have an immortal soul
No it fucking doesn't, all it does is point out that temporal attachments and attributes are "not the soul" (the oft-misused anattā). There are numerous references to the existence of an immortal soul (attā) in the canon.
https://web.archive.org/web/20100704194342/http://www.attan.com/

>> No.18624688

>>18624348
>Nonsense, Advaita and Neoplatonism both accept that the soul is eternal and they both accept that the world cannot arise without some transcendent cause. Buddhism rejects that we have an immortal soul and Buddhism also rejects that a transcendent source is needed to explain the origination of the universe.

There's no practical difference. Using different terms and a slight change in emphasis doesn't change their substantial agreement. Saying "No that's wrong" and proving it with using different terms and a slight change in emphasis further proves my point.

>> No.18624707

>>18623426
>spend the rest of my days meditating and studying the Neoplatonists as an ascetic monk?
So it's true. Most monkLARPers on this board have no idea what the monk life actually is like

>> No.18624712

>>18624678
>Coomaraswamy
lol

>>18624043
There are utterly massive differences between the three. For starters, Buddhism is multiple traditions, Advaita Vedanta is just atheism+, and Plotinus was a polytheist, so just from the point of view of "what entities do these practitioners interact with" they're very fucking different. You could make an argument that Plotinus and Buddhists do overlap as some of the entities that Buddhists interact with are literally just "the Olympians as described by Hesiod and Homer", such as Vajrapani who is literally just Hercules (he traveled East after his apotheosis and became friends with the Buddha), but unless you're going to do some whacky syncreticism like "Guanyin is Hera" or whatever then that's literally the only point of contact other than Boreas (who is just a wind-spirit, he's not really "Buddhist" in any meaningful sense).

This doesn't get into the differences in metaphysics, practice, soteriology, cosmology, epistemology, etc.

>>18623716
It's just memes. Guenonfag randomly drops thinkers and smashes them together. Plato, John Philopdorus, Aquinas, and Blavatsky were all really just saying the same thing. It's just a meme, it's not serious.

>> No.18624727

>>18624712
>For starters, Buddhism is multiple traditions, Advaita Vedanta is just atheism+, and Plotinus was a polytheist,
My man, you're embarassing yourself

>> No.18624728

Middle Platonism was already esoteric in character. Plato alludes to an unwritten doctrine in the second letter if one chooses to admit it.

>> No.18624795

>>18624212
>I know Luc Brisson supposedly rejects the esoteric/Tubingen school.
Everyone does nowadays

>> No.18624796
File: 458 KB, 831x675, 1623399448451.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18624796

What's with all the uneducated living Buddhas around here who don't even know what upaya is and haven't read half a sutra thinking they have any authority to sum up Buddhism in a couple sentences or even get away with absurdly false claims about the practice of it

>> No.18625003

>>18624796
This is actually /lit/'s level of discourse on any subject; (You) are just noticing it because of having read a book or two on the subject as opposed to being a fellow non-reader debating non-readers.

>> No.18625109

>>18624688
>There's no practical difference
By that logic there would be no practical difference between Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy and a sect of Christianity which taught that souls are non-eternal and that God was non-transcendent to the world, i.e. He was immanent in or as it. But we both know that's not true, and it's not true viz. eastern traditions either.

>> No.18625117

>>18624727
>no really dude this guy living in 250ad rome wasnt a polytheist, he was actually a muslim 250+ years before muhammad was born!
retard

>> No.18625123

>>18625109
Right there is still no practical difference in nihilistic vocabularies. Though perhaps immanence is more life-affirming.

>> No.18625144

>>18625123
The only religious tradition that a worthwhile argument can be made for it being nihilistic is Buddhism, because Buddhism is the only religious tradition which has subschools which say that ultimately nothing whatsoever exists and that the soul or one's awareness doesn't continue into an immortal freedom. Not all of Buddhism says this though.

>> No.18625184

>>18625109
No, the difference is that Catholics and EO admit that there is a soul. Advaitins and Buddhist say there isn't an individual soul.

Advaita is just an adaptation of Hinduism to Buddhism, to stop the bleeding of Hindus to Buddhism.

>> No.18625192

>>18625184
that there is an individual soul*

>> No.18625208

>>18623726
I have no interest in pretending the god of the Bible is the creator of the universe though.

>> No.18625276

>>18625117
Pathetic

>> No.18625280

>>18625276
Shcum

>> No.18625291

>>18625144
>which has subschools which say that ultimately nothing whatsoever exists
There are no schools of Buddhism that say this.

>> No.18625292

>>18625208
The Father is merely a hypostasis of the indescribable Godhead

>> No.18625300

>>18625291
Sunyata is nihilism

>> No.18625306

>>18625300
Don't bother, buddhism is word games: the religion
You'll just spark another argument about terminology that will never go anywhere

>> No.18625316

>>18625300
No it isn't. Nihilism is one of the Wrong Views that the Buddha expounded against. It's literally something he, and later thinkers, oppose.

>> No.18625322

>>18625316
>he said something so that means it's true
I have a bridge to sell you

>> No.18625324

>>18625292
I have no interest in pretending the father of the Bible is a hypostasis of the indescribable Godhead though.

>> No.18625328

obsecutam

>> No.18625330

>>18625324
Better than pretending you're a soulless mass of aggregates but you do you

>> No.18625335

>>18625330
I'm unsure what you mean. Buddhists believe in souls. What texts have you read that would make you think otherwise?

>> No.18625341

>>18625335
The soul is immortal and personal.

>> No.18625351

>>18625324
Why?

>> No.18625370

>>18625341
пaдeжoм

>> No.18625376

>>18625370
?

>> No.18625385

>>18625351
>>18625376
I SEE YOU'RE PISSING IN YOUR PANTS LITTLE SISSY BOY

>> No.18625388

>>18625184
>Advaita is just an adaptation of Hinduism to Buddhism, to stop the bleeding of Hindus to Buddhism.
No that's just a cope answer given by Buddhists because they never were able to offer rebuttals to Shankara's arguments against Buddhism. Advaita is exclusively based on an exegesis of the Upanishads, Advaita's refutations of Buddhism were just part of its practice of critiquing all major schools at the time, including other Hindus schools, Jainism and Buddhism, to show the correctness and superiority of Advaita over all of them. Buddhisms like to inflate their importance for Advaita because it draws attention away from the truth that Shankara irrevocably refuted numerous Buddhist doctrines.

>> No.18625395

>>18625385
meds

>> No.18625398

>>18625330
That we are made of a mass of aggregates seems to not be too far from truth to me though. And whether there is a spark of imperishable essence underlying it is something I could potentially leave open until I have grown in meditation and insight.
>>18625351
Because I have found absolutely no reason to believe it. And to pretend I do seem akin to lying.

>> No.18625408

>>18625398
>I have found absolutely no reason to believe it.
Have you read the Bible?

>> No.18625420

>>18625184
>Advaitins and Buddhist say there isn't an individual soul.
Advaita does say that there is a supremely-real supra-individual soul though which presents itself under the guise of individuals, while Buddhism doesn't admit admit the reality of any individual or supra-individual soul. That is a major difference because it makes Advaita soul-affirming, while Buddhism isn't.

>> No.18625423

>>18625395
Beta-blockers

>> No.18625424

>>18625408
Not all of it but a decent chunk of it.

>> No.18625425

>>18625398
>That we are made of a mass of aggregates seems to not be too far from truth to me
If you're capable of seriously entertaining the possibility that the immortal soul might not exist without intuitively feeling that such a proposition is absurd, then go for Buddhism.

>> No.18625427
File: 292 KB, 535x630, 013fycxtz6a41.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18625427

He also got BTFO by the Gnostics and had to resort to straw manning them and blind appeals to Plato as divine authority, something Plato would have rejected forcefully.

>> No.18625450

>>18625427
Gnostics are annihlationists too, reabsorption into the Pleroma is exactly the same as Plotinus' system

>> No.18625454

Frankly I completely understand why the Jews could continue to beleive in God, but attribute no true name to It, not beleive in a heaven or hell, or any afterlife, and reject Jesus as being an avatar of God and rejecting his theology. Jewish mysticism has seemed much more grounded than Christian, frankly, idiocy, and falls a lot more in line with some Hindu mysticism in my personal experience. I am not the most read on all that. I have a bad habit of giving people benefit of the doubt, but is it truly as simple as some billion+ receiving the Bribe of Heaven and devoting their lives to Christ based on that? Most Christian mysticism is just about Jesus' function and offers no real wisdom or insight like Jewish mysticism (which I find they typically ignore or the existence of Christ destroys) and Eastern traditions offer.

>> No.18625464

>>18625420
It's just rebranded as the Tathagatagharba and the trikaya doctrine

>> No.18625474

>>18625454
>I am not the most read on all that.
It shows.
>Most Christian mysticism [...] offers no real wisdom or insight
kek

>> No.18625479

>>18625425
Well to tell you the truth I have read more Advaita than Buddhism and I would say I find Advaita to be more doctrinally appealing but the Buddhist monkhood seems more doable than joining some Advaita ashram in the himalayas.

>> No.18625534

>>18625479
Look into Vajrayana then, you'll find a lot more crypto-hinduism there. Jonang especially.

>> No.18625535

>>18625464
>It's just rebranded as the Tathagatagharba and the trikaya doctrine
But practically all the major Buddhist schools still manage to subordinate those concepts into some sort of ontological nihilism whereby the Tathagatagharba becomes regarded as an upaya that doesn't intrinsically exist in itself but instead symbolizes the innate potential of all beings to realize their own lack of selfhood and the lack of intrinsic existence making up all their aggregates that form their conscious experience. The Buddhists schools which don't take this view are a small minority who are regarded by rest as being more or less heretics taking an unsound position.

The majority of Mahayana and Vajrayana schools make the third turning subordinate to the 2nd turning of the dharma wheel. This is shown for example by the Dalai Lama's statement in one speech that the 4 major Tibetan schools of Buddhism (he lists 4 because he's not including the 5th, Jonang, who doesn't do this) all reject the premise that there can be intrinsic existence that exists in its own right.

>> No.18625540

>>18625341
You're going to cite your source on that because there are a number of traditions that disagree with you there.

>> No.18625546

>>18625540
>there are a number of traditions that disagree with you there.
Yeah and they're wrong.

>> No.18625553

>>18625546
Have you read the Urantia Book?

>> No.18625555

>>18625553
I don't read new age material.

>> No.18625556

>>18625534
If I'll ordain(which is looking more and more plausible) it will be in Theravada.

>> No.18625563

>>18625535
If I understand correctly, this is where a Zen master would hit you over the head and say, "if nothing exists where does this pain come from?"

Ultimately it's all inconceivable, like the reality behind all the cycle of argumentation.

>> No.18625575

>>18625563
>Ultimately it's all inconceivable
This is such a copout.

>> No.18625577

>>18625555
Ok Plato

>> No.18625584
File: 793 KB, 1000x1000, 1602218720788.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18625584

>>18625577
>he's not a platonist
ngmi

>> No.18625590

>>18625563
Yes, that is absolutely correct. He's making the mistake of thinking that Sunyata=Nihilism. This is incorrect; Sunyata is not a substance, it's a characterization of how things exist. They exist because of Sunyata (a thing that wasn't Empty actually would be unable to exist). Things exist Emptily; things that exist are Empty.

>> No.18625596

>>18625584
I was degrading your mentality with respect to Plato

>> No.18625598

>>18625388
>No that's just a cope answer given by Buddhists because they never were able to offer rebuttals to Shankara's arguments against Buddhism. Advaita is exclusively based on an exegesis of the Upanishads, Advaita's refutations of Buddhism were just part of its practice of critiquing all major schools at the time, including other Hindus schools, Jainism and Buddhism, to show the correctness and superiority of Advaita over all of them. Buddhisms like to inflate their importance for Advaita because it draws attention away from the truth that Shankara irrevocably refuted numerous Buddhist doctrines.

No, Advaita was clearly invented to stop the bleeding into Buddhism. Employing different terms and a slightly different emphasis doesn't change that they're the same for all practical purposes.

>> No.18625601

>>18625575
Why? It's part of Buddhism from the very beginning, buddha saying he can't do it for you, he can only be the finger pointing to the moon, or the avatamsaka and huayen leading into Chan/zen, or people walking away from the Lotus Sutra disappointed. All of reality isn't divided into a "there has to be a winner and a loser" dichotomy. What's there to fight about?

>> No.18625602

>>18625596
I am impervious to your insults and I can tell you have thin wrists.

>> No.18625605

>>18625420
>That is a major difference because it makes Advaita soul-affirming, while Buddhism isn't.

Saying that doesn't make it true. They're both the same. You come across as a used car salesman.

>> No.18625611

Really religious and philosophical argumentation should be decided with rap battles and slam poetry.

>> No.18625618

>>18625575
Yes, you're supposed to wave away those arguments as being "unnecessary for enlightenment."

Buddhism is stupid at its core and Hinduism is sperging out over terminology of its million different sects.

>> No.18625623

>>18625601
Because the entire point is to sit around quibbling about wordgames. What you, and the Buddha, are suggesting is getting up and actually doing stuff.

>> No.18625625

>>18625601
Because
>ultimately it's all inconceivable
Is essentially used as a way to end arguments without having to concede anything. Would it kill you to have actual beliefs? It's not about winning and losing, it's about making a definitive statement. Yes, the absolute Truth of existence cannot be expressed and this is something every mystic from every tradition admits, but this doesn't mean we get to default back to this "oh it's indescribable anyway" copout every time we're faced with an obstacle.

>> No.18625630

>>18625450
Yes, but they recognize the flawed nature of Yaldaboath's material world in a way that is obvious, "nature is red in tooth and claw," but which Plato's cosmology excused.

Second, Gnostics dumped Plato's epistemology and the Forms, which had already be shown to lead to reductio ad absurdum by Aristotle, for a sort of Heraclitean semiotics of opposites, while also foreshadowing Hegel's semiotics of sublation as they worked on the theory. Meaning as emanations of the Monad, held in pairs of sublation that generates definition, was definetly a step forward in the history of semiotics from Plato, and would get passed down through the Hermetic tradition and Kabbalah after the suppression (i.e. genocide and destruction of their texts) of the Gnostics. This line of thought would bear fruit far down the line in Eckhart, Boehme, the German Idealists, and the development of semiotics as a field by Sausser and Pierce.

The other forward step of the Gnostics was to employ intense practice and introspection to their faith, in a way reminiscent of Buddhism, hence it's major role in influencing mystcism and occultism even after their suppression.

It's wrong to think of the Gnostics as just Platonism for Jews and Christians, as they develop an ontology clearly influenced by Plato, but also by Jewish Merkaba mysticism and Heraclitean ideas.

>> No.18625635

>>18625625
Why do you have to have "actual" beliefs?what constitutes that in your eyes?

>> No.18625641

>>18625635
>Why do you have to have "actual" beliefs?
Is this a serious question?

>> No.18625648

>>18625630
kjøkkenvinduer

>> No.18625652

>>18625563
With the more philosophically developed religious traditions that don't accept anti-foundationalism, there is no point where you have to reject it all as signifying some inconceivable reality that makes no sense, because the explanation of that reality in these other religious traditions is logically coherent, but without taking the logical explanation in discursive terms to be that reality itself; being fully aware of the distinction.

>>18625575
this

>> No.18625654

>>18625641
Wendy's > McD's any day of the week

>> No.18625655
File: 118 KB, 900x616, Demiurge_246aaa_7210212.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18625655

>>18625427
Yeah, the Demiurge being a high functioning guy who employs the Logos correctly is pretty tough to swallow if you actually open your eyes.

>> No.18625657

>>18625630
>Yes
Don't you find anything wrong with that?

>> No.18625682

>>18625652
You haven't really said anything meaningful. What's antifoundational about cultivating a mindset to experience the inconceivable and seek to live it? Upaya is a method of teaching to get you to see it. Your philosophy sounds like you just want war.

>> No.18625707

>>18625598
>No, Advaita was clearly invented to stop the bleeding into Buddhism
There's no proof of that, the central doctrine of Advaita (the non-dual God Brahman appears as the individual beings via His power while being identical to their inner essence) is already spoken of in the pre-Buddhist Upanishads. The positions of Advaita are often the opposite of Buddhism, like the Atman (unchanging immortal inner awareness) vs Anatta (no inner awareness). You don't offer the opposite of something else if you are trying to attract people who might join that other thing.

Moreover, the Mimansa thinker Kumarila Bhatta made some similar critiques of Buddhism as Shankara did, as did some later Shaivist thinkers, they all attacked the Buddhist doctrine of anatta in similar ways that sometimes differ, it has nothing to do with just Advaita.

>> No.18625726

>>18625605
>They're both the same
No, it's not, because one can account for the self-evident reality of consciousness, while the other can't logically explain how, why, and in what way our consciousness exists.

>>18625618
>Hinduism is sperging out over terminology of its million different sects
quibbling over language is more typical of western philosophy than Hindu writings

>> No.18625736

>>18625635
>what constitutes that in your eyes?
The soul exists and is immortal and individual.
The almighty creator is both immanent and transcendent, and is infinitely wise and benevolent.
Universals exist and nominalism is wrong.

>> No.18625741

>>18625590
>Things exist Emptily
emptily as being "empty of intrinsic existence", so they don't ultimately exist, because their non-intrinsic relative existence isn't considered to be ultimately real, so its still ontological nihilism because there is no ultimate existence but only false existence that has no substantially or essence. If you separate things into relative and absolute/ultimate existence, and say that the relative doesn't exist ultimately, and there is no ultimately existing reality/foundation aside from the false relative, that results in ontological nihilism.

>> No.18625770

>>18625682
>What's antifoundational about
don't play stupid, you know why Buddhism is rightly considered anti-foundationalist
>Your philosophy sounds like you just want war.
The rejection of other views and doctrines as wrong and logically incoherent has nothing to do with wanting war. And Buddhists have written tracts attacking other schools just as much as anyone else has.

>> No.18625774

Speaking of inherent existence, is there a middle ground between this and the somewhat empiricist interpretations of Abrahamicism?
Of course I would never expect ontological nihilism even from the most heterodox Christian mystics, but it seems to me Christian theologians don't address the problem of the nature of reality as much as easterners do. Does anyone have any book recs?

>> No.18625778

>>18625736
Okay, that's your opinion and your life doesn't change whether you believe that or its opposite because you can't prove it either way.

>> No.18625785

>>18625770
Nuh uh

>> No.18625787

"The unquestioned authority of the Vedas;
the belief in a world-creator;
the quest for purification through ritual bathing;
the arrogant division into castes;
the practice of mortification to atone for sin—
these five are the marks of the crass stupidity of witless men."

Damn these Buddhists were really out there dunking on Hindus and Christians alike. How do Abrahamics and Hindus recover from this?

>> No.18625789

>>18625774
>Does anyone have any book recs?
the works of Pseudo-Dionysus and Eriugena

>> No.18625800

>>18625787
Buddhists practice repentance for sin, pray, and worship the Buddhas so good for them I guess?

>> No.18625848

>>18625787
>How do Abrahamics and Hindus recover from this?
By pointing out the fatal flaws in Buddhist metaphysics

>"No one, they (Buddhists) claim, can possibly deny this chain of causation (Pratītyasamutpāda) beginning with nescience. And once the whole causal chain beginning with nescience is admitted to exist, and to be revolving continually like a wheel with buckets at a well, it is found to imply that the formation of aggregates must be possible. But this is not right, as the causes so far mentioned lead to production (of the next effect in the series) only (and not to aggregation of any kind). An aggregate could be admitted if an intelligible cause were assigned for it. But it is not. Nescience and the rest may cause one another mutually in your cycle, but they only cause the rise of the next link in the chain. There is nothing to show that anything could be the cause of an aggregate. True, you claimed that if nescience and the rest were admitted, an aggregate was necessarily implied.

>To this, however, we reply as follows. If you mean that nescience and the rest cannot arise except in the presence of some aggregate and so are dependent on it, then you still have to explain what could be the cause of the aggregate. Now, we have already shown in the course of our criticism of the Vaisesikas that aggregation is unintelligible even when supported by such assumptions as that of the existence of eternal atoms along with eternal individual experiencers who serve as permanent loci for the conservation of the effects of past action. So it will be all the less intelligible in a theory in which only atoms of momentary existence are admitted, without any permanent experiencer or any permanent locus for anything. If the Buddhist now claims that it is this causal chain beginning with nescience that is the cause of aggregation, we ask how this causal chain (pratītyasamutpāda) could ever be the cause of aggregation (of its constituents into a united whole that can produce nescience etc) when it depends on (that) aggregation for its own existence?
- Shankaracharya (pbuh)

>> No.18625870

>>18625778
>that's your opinion
Yes. Why do you somehow feel "above" having beliefs?
>your life doesn't change
It does.

>> No.18625887

>>18625848
Ah yes, the Spripripoopoopeepee sutra proves how Advaita is more than just sperging about terminology and trying to deny to itself that it's a more inconsistent form of Buddhism.

Thank you for posting this wall of text.

>> No.18625914

>>18625887
>Thank you for posting this wall of text.
You're welcome, it's noteworthy because rarely do you see a central tenet of a whole religious tradition (co-dependent origination) be refuted in just two paragraphs.

>> No.18625919

>>18625870
You're really trying to strawman me into beleiving I have an unfallible personality. You're protecting that on to me as a deflection. Who says I don't have beleifs? I beleive personally that you haven't experienced enlightenment and seen the fundamental nature, and that's the reason you want to fight, because you don't understand, you still crave some kind of supremacy or you wouldn't be here in the first place.

Also yes, beleiving in Christianity or not has no influence on how you experience life. None whatsoever, because you internally choose how to interpret and experience every aspect of your conscious experience.

After this your only argument is to say no u because I'm here too, but I didn't come to fight.

>> No.18625929

>>18625914
Hold your nose and mouth shut for 3 minutes and see nothing exists by itself.

>> No.18625932

>>18625454
The Kabbalah school was established after Islamic and Christian mysticism you dunce.

>> No.18625959

>>18625929
That doesn't prove anything you crypto-physicalist, even when the mind passes out consciousness exists by itself, and this is what allows us to experience and witness the transition from the mind being active to inactive. If there wasn't still consciousness there you wouldn't even be able to see that "nothing exists by itself", because doing so would require you to still be conscious to see it.

>> No.18625963

>>18625959
You completely missed the point

>> No.18625967
File: 19 KB, 346x360, 1624737042862.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18625967

This thread is the state of intellectuals. Nobody can complain about there being anything wrong with the world if this is muscular flex on display.

>> No.18625968

>>18625963
What is your point then? If you have a worthwhile point then stop beating around the bush and just say it

>> No.18625979

>>18625968
You are literally too stupid for it. Even Alan Watts could tell you. Even Jesus could tell you. A twitter tranny could tell you. You are so oblivious to the obvious I could suck your penis (full homo) and you would not sense gayness.

>> No.18625995

>>18625979
You don’t have a good point but your positions are logically unsound, and that’s why you’re attacking my character instead of making your non-point point that you’re too embarrassed to state directly.

>> No.18626015

>>18625995
Not true. When I tell you gayness, you think a penis. When I tell someone who understands reality "gayness", they think, "two men". I can not be more obvious than that you enthusastic retail associate.

>> No.18626046

>>18621303
And this is why peasants weren't allowed to the mysteries, ladies and gentlemen.

>> No.18626061

>>18626015
Your depraved homosexual fantasies are not a stopgap for your illogical metaphysics. You claim a relativist viewpoint where nothing exists intrinsically but all your lame arguments for that position are easy to refute, all you have left is posturing, strawmen, ad hominems, this is what you always do on /lit/ when your sophistic arguments are refuted and you have no good arguments left. You’ve done it for years

>> No.18626077

>>18626061
Now this is the actual faggotry. I am every boogeyman in your fantasy and, it's true, I am every post that has ever argued with you (actually I'm only around 86%, as you intuitively know), slowly I've been learning all your secrets so I can righteously vanquish all shankara(pbuh)fags from /lit/ forever! Now will you fight or perish like a dog to my cringepost?

>> No.18626109

>>18625919
Your ‘enlightenment’ doesn’t exist. Buddhists are functional retards that pretend to be ‘enlightened’ so they can talk down to anyone who ‘fights’ for what they believe in.

I’m glad the Chinese got rid of slavery and the aristocracy of the Dalai Lama in Tibet.

>> No.18626116

>>18623683
Based Prior Analytics reader

>> No.18626124

>>18626077
>I am every boogeyman in your fantasy
You’re not, it’s just that there are very few fans of gay relativist soul-denying nihilism on /lit/ and of those few, you have a very distinct style of writing and arguing

>so I can righteously vanquish all shankara(pbuh)fags from /lit/ forever!
Impossible, because Advaita is irrefutable and Shankara (pbuh) irrevocably refuted Buddhism

>> No.18626143

>>18626109
Enlightenment absolutley exists. You're 100% to the soul a nihilist atheist and are so deluded that you don't realize it. The Mystical Experience, the Beatific Vision, Bodhi, etc is a highly documented experience and you're frankly a cute kid that hasn't started kindergarten yet. You're not spiritually old enough to buy beer. Good lord, go to church more.

>> No.18626161

>>18626124
You retard. I came out and said it. I am every poster yoi have ever encountered. I exist to troll you in myriad threads until we have our prophesized final battle at the end of time. I'm coming. I'm warning you that I'm coming to the retail location you work at, I'm going to identify you by your aura, and I'm going to make an extremely irritating but reasonable request about you while your boss is in earshot, then call the store after I leave and complain about your service by name. Because this is NOT the first time we've ever interacted with each other. FOR REAL.

>> No.18626202

>>18625919
>beleiving in Christianity or not has no influence on how you experience life.
What about Buddhism?

>> No.18626281

>>18626202
Destroy it.

>> No.18627272

>>18626124
>Impossible, because Advaita is irrefutable and Shankara (pbuh) irrevocably refuted Buddhism

How can he refute Buddhism by plagiarizing it? That doesn't make any sense at all.

>> No.18627306

>>18626143
>enlightenment exists because the experience is documented
embarrassing

>> No.18627354

>>18625655
This makes no fucking sense.
The Demiurge cannot fuck up; if it happens, it's part of the plan.

>> No.18627512

>>18627272
>How can he refute Buddhism by plagiarizing it?
He didn’t plagiarize Buddhism, and the various Buddhist doctrines he criticizes are not taught by Advaita, Shankara refuted those Buddhist doctrines by showing how they contradict our experience and by showing how they are logically incoherent.

>> No.18627568

>>18627512
He adapted Hinduism to incorporate Buddhist teachings in order to stop Hindus from converting to Buddhist, as they were doing in mass numbers. But in doing so, he ends up less consistent than the Buddhists, and ultimately more dishonest.

>> No.18628092

>>18627568
> He adapted Hinduism to incorporate Buddhist teachings
Shankara didnt adapt Hinduism but he was born a Hindu Brahmin into a Hindu family, he was always a Hindu from birth. There were not any Buddhist teachings that he incorporated into Hinduism, but Shankara only taught the truths that were already in the primary Upanishads including in the pre-Buddhist ones.
>in order to stop Hindus from converting to Buddhist, as they were doing in mass numbers.
Buddhism was only ever really popular in India among a portion of the NPC city-dwellers, it never had a strong following among the small villages and farmers that were the majority of Indian society by numbers.
>But in doing so, he ends up less consistent than the Buddhists,
Advaita Vedanta is much more logically consistent than Buddhism, each of the major Buddhist sub-schools are beset by numerous logical contradictions as are the general tenets which they all share. That’s why they could never refuted Shankara’s arguments
>and ultimately more dishonest.
He is not dishonest at all

>> No.18628128
File: 158 KB, 487x578, 1612966249344.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18628128

>>18628092
>Shankara only taught the truths that were already in the primary Upanishads including in the pre-Buddhist ones.
Extreme cope. The Buddhists brahmin-broke India for a thousand years. That's like saying theosophists aren't influenced by Christianity.

>> No.18628198

>>18627512
>our experience
Incorrect, in his commentaries on the Srisrimahavaryacharyaitchyvagoo Upanishad Shankara (PBUH) demonstrates that there are no experiences as they are just Maya made of illusion. They aren't real, and you aren't experiencing them. The only experience is Brahman's reflexive opaque self-illumination.
>logically incoherent.
Wrong, in his commentaries on the Srisrimahavaryacharyaitchyvagoo Upanishad Shankara (PBUH) demonstrated that a knife can cut itself because of Atman's translucence.

>> No.18628330

>>18628092
Shankara smuggled Buddhism into Hinduism in order to stop people from converting to Buddhism, this is known. His position is less consistent than Buddhism, which accepts and does not hide it's annihilation, whereas Advaita makes the same claims but tries to say that it's somehow consciousness and not a void, despite having argued against its very possibility.

That Shankara employed different times and a slightly different emphasis does nothing to change the essential fact that Advaita is Buddhism.

>> No.18628337

>>18628330
different terms*

>> No.18628443

>>18628330
>Shankara smuggled Buddhism into Hinduism in order to stop people from converting to Buddhism, this is known.
No, that's wrong, there is no Buddhist doctrine which Shankara accepts. The Absolute vs. appearance distinction in Advaita is different from Buddhism because in Mahayana the Absolute doesn't exist as an independent reality and it's not different from the relative; whereas in Advaita the Absolute has indepdent and supreme existence and is different from the relative, thus they end up being quite different metaphysical positions.
>His position is less consistent than Buddhism, which accepts and does not hide it's annihilation, whereas Advaita makes the same claims but tries to say that it's somehow consciousness and not a void, despite having argued against its very possibility.
Advaita is not inconsistent, Advaita is not annihilationist because their consciousness continues forever and is immortal. Immortal self-revealing consciousness is mutually exclusive with being a void, and Advaita never argued against this as you incorrectly claim.
>That Shankara employed different times and a slightly different emphasis does nothing to change the essential fact that Advaita is Buddhism.
That's wrong, because every many of the central doctrines of Buddhism are rejected and attacked by Shankara, do you know nothing of this topic at all?

>> No.18628583

>>18628443
But how can that be true since Advaita is is crypto-Buddhism adapted to fit into Hinduism? Using different terms to describe the same things and having a subtle difference of emphasis doesn't change this fact.

>> No.18628613

>>18628583
>But how can that be true since Advaita is is crypto-Buddhism adapted to fit into Hinduism?
It can be true because Advaita *isn't* crypto-Buddhism or another kind of Buddhism. Advaita rejects the central doctrines of Buddhism (anatta, pratityasamutpada) and so it can't be Buddhism or crypto-Buddhism.

Advaita doesn't describe the same thing as Buddhists because there is continuing immortal Awareness in the Advaita conception of the Absolute. Stating whether or not the Absolute or the equivalent of Godhead can being characterized as conscious or without consciousness is not a mere matter of emphasis but its a huge difference.

>> No.18630246

>>18627354
He's stupid

>> No.18630518

>>18628613
But that's just wrong, since Advaita is merely Buddhism put into the mold of Hinduism, in order to stop Hindus from converting to Buddhism.

Employing a slightly different emphasis and terms doesn't change the fact that Advaita is Buddhism for all intents and purposes.

>> No.18630530

>>18623426
Lol you will be sweeping the floors of the monastery most of the time.

>> No.18631485

>>18628613
Advaita is Crypto-Buddhism for trying to sneak Sunyata in by arguing that nothing exists except atman which is brahman. I agree, it's dumb because this is just open nihilism, not Crypto-anything, I mean come the fuck on "Things exist" is one of the basic points of Buddhism. But then, the "shankara is a crypto-buddhist" thing comes from hindus, not buddhists or westerners, so its tainted by the dualistic and monistic schools of Hinduism and their specific hangups.