Did Shankara plagarize in his writings?

[Anonymous No.19606464]

Who did he steal from?

[Anonymous No.19606553]

>>19606464
Shankara did not plagiarize anyone but he instead merely churned the eternal milk-ocean of Vedic wisdom with the Mandara mountain of his mighty intellect, producing the amrita of divine knowledge

[Anonymous No.19607090]

>>19606464
Me.

[Anonymous No.19607880]

Shankara simply took up the philosophical and monastic frameworks of Mahayana Buddhism and added "Atman" at the end. This is the opinion of almost all scholars of Indian philosophy, including many prominent Advaitins.

If you still want to learn about Shankara's cryptobuddhism, you should, but be aware of what you're getting into. You might want to read about the Mahayana Buddhism that Shankara was copying from first, so you can go chronologically. If you are looking for the real teachings of the Vedas, definitely do not read Shankara. You will be getting Buddhism, not Vedanta.

[Anonymous No.19607898]

>>19607880
Advaita bros...

[Anonymous No.19607921]

>>19607880
> Shankara simply took up the philosophical and monastic frameworks of Mahayana Buddhism and added "Atman" at the end.
Incorrect, Shankara rejects practically every premise of Buddhism and his thought is rooted in the Upanishads. Monasticism had long already been part of Hinduism and is spoken about favorably in the Upanishads, Mahabharata, Gita, Puranas etc, revitalizing or imposing more order pre-existing monasticism within one religion doesn’t constitute taking something else from anything religion as its framework.

>This is the opinion of almost all scholars of Indian philosophy, including many prominent Advaitins.
No it’s not, that’s a flat out lie, and the only “”””advaitins”””” that say so are Neovedantins like Radhakrishnan, none of the actual real Advaitins who are members of Advaita orders say that.

[Anonymous No.19607924]

>>19606464
These threads are like poos not in the loo to flies.

[Anonymous No.19607925]

>>19607924
Kek

I wish there was a way to filter images. I never want to see this picture of Shankara ever again.

[Anonymous No.19607967]

>>19607921
Sorry, virtually every scholar agrees that advaita is cryptobuddhism. Its modern form was also extremely influenced by Theosophy:

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

>Goodrick-Clarke wrote that "educated Indians" were particularly impressed by the Theosophists' defense of their ancient religion and philosophy in the context of the growing self-consciousness of the people, directed against the "values and beliefs of the European colonial powers." Ranbir Singh, the "Maharajah of Kashmir" and a "Vedanta scholar", sponsored Blavatsky and Olcott's travels in India. Sirdar Thakar Singh Sandhanwalia, "founder of the Singh Sabha," became a master ally of the Theosophists.[55][note 16] Prof. Stuckrad noted the wave of solidarity which covered the Theosophists in India had powerful "political implications." He wrote, citing in Cranston's book, that, according to Prof. Radhakrishnan, the philosopher and President of India, the Theosophists "rendered great service" by defending the Hindu "values and ideas"; the "influence of the Theosophical Movement on general Indian society is incalculable."[57]

>Bevir wrote that in India Theosophy "became an integral part of a wider movement of neo-Hinduism", which gave Indian nationalists a "legitimating ideology, a new-found confidence, and experience of organisation." He stated Blavatsky, like Dayananda Sarasvati, Swami Vivekananda, and Sri Aurobindo, "eulogised the Hindu tradition", however simultaneously calling forth to deliverance from the vestiges of the past. The Theosophical advocacy of Hinduism contributed to an "idealisation of a golden age in Indian history." The Theosophists viewed traditional Indian society as the bearer of an "ideal religion and ethic."[26]

>In Prof. Olav Hammer's opinion, Blavatsky, trying to ascribe the origin of the "perennial wisdom" to the Indians, united "two of the dominant Orientalist discourses" of hers era.

[Anonymous No.19607993]

>>19607967
>Its modern form
He just told you Neoadvaita is a modern invention and does not represent the tradition in the very post you replied.

[Anonymous No.19607995]

>>19607967
If Shankara's Advaita is a LARP then what is the most pure Buddhist school that still exists today?
The fact that theosophists influenced modern Hinduism isn't really a surprise when you look at how it operates in the West (all thanks to Vivekenada). Really makes me think...

[Anonymous No.19608022]

>>19607993
advaita has been called crypto buddhism for thousands of years
you don't need to pretend that someone else is replying to me btw, no one else but you seethes about this topic

[Anonymous No.19608040]

>>19607995
why that would be jodo shinshu of course

[Anonymous No.19608187]

>>19607967
like what robert bolton says of guénon
>Guénon was in some respects a typical intellectual of his time, influenced by the way in which metaphysical thought in Europe had already moved in the direction of monistic Pantheism under the influence of 19th Century German idealism. Blavatsky just had to connect that with the Shankaran Vedantic tradition. That mean that European intellectuals would assume from then on the most monistic interpretations of Indian thought must be the most authoritative.

in the west "vedantic" became a synonym for advaita --- why?

it typical of the western man to claim he has recovered something forgotten to original people, and guénon describes this to certain extent when it comes to chinese thought, but it also describes what they did with indian thought.

[Anonymous No.19608486]

>>19608187
> That mean that European intellectuals would assume from then on the most monistic interpretations of Indian thought must be the most authoritative.
kek

Little does Bolton realize that the most monistic interpretations of Hinduism are the Shaivite and Vaishnavite schools like Ramanuja’s that identify the cosmos and physical objects as being Brahman or Brahman’s body. Advaita doesn’t make the cosmos identical with Brahman, Advaita non-dualism is not monism or dualism but it instead belongs to its own category and it considers both dualism and monism to be errors.
> in the west "vedantic" became a synonym for advaita --- why?
Have you ever considered that people simply read Shankara’s works and agreed with his arguments and interpretations and as such felt comfortable citing him as a major example of Vedanta?
> guénon describes this to certain extent when it comes to chinese thought, but it also describes what they did with indian thought.
Guenon never claimed to be “rediscovering” anything easterners had lost, not least of all in Vedanta which never died out but which has continued with Vedantic orders and intellectuals up to the present day. In one of his books Guenon criticizes Leibniz for presuming to have ‘rediscovered’ the real meaning of the I Ching.

[Anonymous No.19608566]

He was one of many victims of a Buddhist practice known as "brahmin breaking," in which those mumbling reciters of the Vedas were forced to learn actual philosophy instead of merely reciting scripture in order to be considered well-behaved thinkers.

[Anonymous No.19608597]

>>19608566
Keep your American filthy memes to yourself. They are not spiritually healthy and are psychotic.

[Anonymous No.19608605]

>>19608597
Not an argument. Please follow a more logical flow than "grrrr you dispute scripture you nastika" or you will be taken out back behind the stūpa for a session

[Anonymous No.19608612]

>>19608605
I am not arguing. Besides i don't particularly hate Buddhists even. But i love the fact that they were destroyed so terribly by Hindus and later Muslims that their only representation in India is of low-caste subhumans. Fitting. Buddhism is a losers' religion and it will die out except for some western autists and yolo-losers for a while.

[Anonymous No.19608635]

>>19608612
>complains about "spiritual health"
>wishes death and suffering on people
cool ressentiment bro, you sound very empowered and knowledgable

[Anonymous No.19608652]

>>19608612
>low-case subhumans
you are psychotic

[Anonymous No.19608663]

imagine having this self awareness. hindu larpers once again proving they are blind

[Anonymous No.19608690]

>>19608612
Making yourself look bad here. Is bitterness and hatred ever good for you?

[Anonymous No.19608694]

>>19607880
>>19607921
Being influenced by other traditions is fine, you dumbasses. It's when there's a hodge-podge of irreconcilable influences that you get a mess. Mahayana influencing Advaita or vice versa is fine in some regards. They have unique differences but several similarities too.
Also, these are experiential traditions. Clinging to doctrine and **endlessly** debating doctrinal differences IS DISCOURAGED IN YOUR OWN TRADITIONS.
You have been debating this shit for YEARS. Holy shit, go touch grass or something.

[Anonymous No.19608752]

I don't like Indians but I Love Shankara.

[Anonymous No.19608857]

>>19608694
>Mahayana influencing Advaita or vice versa
lmao there is no vice versa here you disingenuous fuck, getting real desperate but even your attempted compromises are straight up fabrications, just give it up already

[Anonymous No.19608973]

>>19608694
>>19608857
There's a much stronger case for Samkhya and Buddhism influencing one another, but very few works of Buddhist scholasticism even cover (Advaita) Vedanta as a school, and from the post-Indian perspective that much of extant Mahayana has had for the last thousand years, there would be little reason to engage with Vedanta or study the few texts which did, as earlier textual Buddhist refutations and criticisms of atman, brahmā, ishvara, the authority of the Vedas, etc. essentially cover the same topics before Shankara re-presented them in a new format. On interesting point is that non-Buddhist Indian influences are so backdated that Buddhists still talk about Indra as if he mattered in Hinduism, and use Indra's Net as a metaphor. There is also Tantra, which likely started with non-Buddhists and got assimilated. So it's not as if there are no influences from the outside, but these do not seem to be from AV. If Mahayana were particularly influenced by AV one would expect to see more frequent negative references to it, as there are to the other Hindu schools, and as Advaitans do to Buddhists. One is always influenced by what he negates.

[Anonymous No.19609081]

>>19606464
Sir, he only did the needful.

[Anonymous No.19609098]

>>19606553
>Shankara did not plagiarize anyone but he instead merely churned the eternal milk-ocean of Vedic wisdom with the Mandara mountain of his mighty intellect, producing the amrita of divine knowledge
I'm gonna use this line at my upcoming academic misconduct hearing

[Anonymous No.19609165]

>>19609081
>>19609098
>i was NOT distributing a controlled substance "soma" to my students but wielding the power of maya as in my brahman-nature as atman

[Anonymous No.19609237]

>>19608857
The claims in your picture was extensively refuted in pic related already on the basis of the many false statements and misunderstandings it contains

Such are the poor arguments viz. “buddhist influence” that one has copy and paste 2-cent blogs full of wrong information.

[Anonymous No.19609308]

>>19609237
>n-no this was completely btfo by Shankara
>it's not true that he was influenced by Buddhism he just spent all day thinking about refuting it

[Anonymous No.19609552]

>>19608973
> there would be little reason to engage with Vedanta or study the few texts which did
That is, unless you still wanted to compete in the free market of ideas by trying to show why your teachings are more correct over other ones like Vedanta that people find more compelling in some cases, and which Buddhist historians recorded as defeating Indian Buddhists in debates
>as earlier textual Buddhist refutations and criticisms of atman, brahmā, ishvara, the authority of the Vedas, etc. essentially cover the same topics before Shankara re-presented them in a new format.
Not really, all of the other schools have different definitions of what Atman is, the arguments Buddhists offered against them don’t harm or present any challenge to the Advaita conception of Atman (if so then which argument specifically? answer = there are none). Brahman is a totally different concept than Isvara/Brahmā and so the Buddhist arguments against them attacking them for being conditoned/changing dont apply to an immutable unconditioned Brahman.

[Anonymous No.19609570]

>>19609308
> >it's not true that he was influenced by Buddhism he just spent all day thinking about refuting it
He didn’t spend all day thinking about it you dummy, he spends more time in his works refuting Mimansa and Samkhya positions. The criticisms of Buddhism in his work are a tiny portion of his writing and they are less extensive than his treatment of other schools in his writings.

[Anonymous No.19609757]

>>19609570
>he spends more time in his works refuting Mimansa and Samkhya positions
Know who else does that? Yogacara Buddhists...

[Anonymous No.19609765]

>>19609552
>dont apply to an immutable unconditioned Brahman.
Buddhists don't believe you can demonstrate any thing that is immutable or unconditioned, which would make Brahman 2.0 imaginary anyway

[Anonymous No.19609776]

>>19609757
> Know who else does that? Yogacara Buddhists...
So? Yogacharins presented different arguments against Mimansa and Samkhya than Shankara did, and Shankara himself extensively refuted Yogachara Buddhism. Practically everyone in Indian philosophy presents criticisms against everyone else at one point or another

[Anonymous No.19609794]

>>19609765
> Buddhists don't believe you can demonstrate any thing that is immutable or unconditioned
Buddhists may not believe in an immutable and unconditioned Brahman, but that’s entirely besides the point that the Buddhists failed to come up with any arguments that would refute such a conception by demonstrating how it violates logic.

[Anonymous No.19609840]

[Anonymous No.19609845]

>>19609840

[Anonymous No.19609853]

>>19609845
advaita even stole monasticism from mahayana

[Anonymous No.19609890]

>>19609853
What a ridiculous claim, the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad talks about monasticism as leading to enlightenment over a century before Buddha even lived, it’s really Buddhism which repeated countless things from earlier Upanishadic thought.

[Anonymous No.19609909]

>>19609794
>the Buddhists failed to come up with any arguments that would refute such a conception by demonstrating how it violates logic.
It's not anything new to refute, and a reheat of previous ideas about theology, permanence, etc, all of which Buddhism had already argued against."But what if the atman was brahman, and brahman just farted out illusions by his nature?" Too bad there is no atman or brahman/isvara anyway, why would the debate need to continue? Hindus kept shuffling the same ideas around and finally outverbiaged a late Buddhism that was in intellectual decline, as the centers of learning in the religion had shifted away from India. If you want people arguing about logic you'd need to go to Tibet, where in the 19th century some commentators like Mipham dusted off old Sanskrit works and briefly addressed AV. But even then, it's still just theology and atmavada, it's not anything Buddhism hadn't already argued against. A fresh coat of paint does not change this. Even Shankara would acknowledge his view was already contained in the Vedas. Since those were already rejected, what innovation is there except a new mouthpiece?

[Anonymous No.19609929]

>>19609776
>Practically everyone in Indian philosophy presents criticisms against everyone else at one point or another
Good to know everyone under the sun has been retroactively refuted by some jeetacharya or other. That includes your guy too. So now what? Refutation is an invalid means of cognition? Maybe you are a crypto-Buddhist after all

[Anonymous No.19610046]

>>19609909
> It's not anything new to refute, and a reheat of previous ideas about theology, permanence, etc, all of which Buddhism had already argued against.
No it’s not, all the previous Buddhist arguments are against a changing God who undertakes specific actions that have a beginning and an end, they dont provide any argument refuting the premise of an immutable God. I know you would prefer to pretend otherwise but saying that doesn’t make it true.
>why would the debate need to continue?
Because saying “X doesn’t exist anyways” isn’t a convincing argument, the debate only needs to continue if you actually care about showing up for the debate and acquiring new followers from the aftermath of that debate in the first place, which Buddhism did care about in India right up until around the time they got rekt by Shankara et al
>Hindus kept shuffling the same ideas around and finally outverbiaged a late Buddhism that was in intellectual decline
Buddhism was really in an intellectual of its own making, which led to them being refuted and exposed as fools
>If you want people arguing about logic you'd need to go to Tibet, where in the 19th century some commentators like Mipham dusted off old Sanskrit works and briefly addressed AV.
He failed to come up with any worthwhile argument and in fact completely misconstrues the AV position and what AV teaches consciousness is, Mipham erroneously supposes that Advaita’s consciousness model follows sahopalambha when Advaita in fact rejects and attacks the doctrine of sahopalambha, and this makes the main thrust of Mipham’s argument completely worthless, its actually the exact same mistake that Shantaraksita and Kamalashila make.

[Anonymous No.19610055]

>>19609929
> Good to know everyone under the sun has been retroactively refuted by some jeetacharya or other. That includes your guy too.
Wrong dumbass, because criticism =/= refutation. Some criticisms can be valid refutations, others aren’t.

[Anonymous No.19610117]

>>19610046
Mipham is commenting on those authors's shastras so that makes sense that in the absence of further engagement with AV he repeats their version of it. Even so, a theistic doctrine of a permanent being based on Vedic scriptures is what AV is, unless you are about to tell me otherwise, and that is readily argued against as early as the nikayas, and any Buddhist is familiar with this position. That two Yogacara-Madhyamikas and a Tibetan were unclear about what made AV novel in regards to Hindu theology and got stuck on one of its arcane points, such point being ultimately dependent on "just believe me, the vedas say so," is perhaps to their credit in the long run, even if to royal Indian audiences at the time it was exciting that a verbose priest could successfully confuse an atheist with sophistry regarding his particular explanation for god

[Anonymous No.19610128]

>>19610055
To which court of public opinion will you be appealing to in order to raise criticism to "valid" refutation?

[Anonymous No.19610140]

>>19609890
>claiming to know better than Eliot Deutsch
Eliot Deutsch is THE most recommended authority on the Upanishads by our very own guenonfag.

[Anonymous No.19610141]

>>19608857
You missed my point. Damn, your autism is strong.

[Anonymous No.19610162]

/trad/ chads, I have decided to live my life according to /trad/itional principles. I'm looking for a new profession and I figured a Butcher is the most suitable /trad/ job for me.
what do you think?

[Anonymous No.19610186]

>>19610140
> claiming to know better than Eliot Deutsch
Yes.
> Eliot Deutsch is THE most recommended authority on the Upanishads by our very own guenonfag
Wrong, that title belongs to none other than Sri Shankaracharya (pbuh) himself, who is the foremost authority on them

[Anonymous No.19610373]

>>19610162
Very popular career with Indian Muslims.

[Anonymous No.19610389]

>>19610373
well im italian american so maybe i'll focus on the pork market

[Anonymous No.19610409]

>>19610162
Its somewhat low-caste, but at this point any career that is somewhat honourable and gives you the time you need to focus on your spiritual progress is good

[Anonymous No.19610480]

>>19610409
>Its somewhat low-caste
it's okay, this is just a day job
at night time we /high-caste/gang
>focus on your spiritual progress is good
precisely, that's the goal.

what do you think of kriya yoga?

[Anonymous No.19610498]

>>19610480
>it's okay, this is just a day job
Yes, and its somewhat honourable

>what do you think of kriya yoga?
I dont know much about unfortunately. Some of the other anons might be of more help. I think if you are italian american the biggest concern you might have is getting proper initiation

[Anonymous No.19610559]

>>19610498
>I think if you are italian american the biggest concern you might have is getting proper initiation
there are plenty of legitimate initiatic lines that have made their way to USA from India and the East. there's a lot of new age bullshit, but a real /trad/ chad will be able to find proper oriental initiatory lines in USA if he/she looks.

Now my plan is somewhat like what Guenon suggested for Westerners to do in 'East & West': go get initiated into an Eastern Tradition then come back to Catholicism. If I find Catholicism no longer valid, i'll go Muslim.
It'll take at least a decade or two to reach such a goal, but this is the most interesting path to me

[Anonymous No.19610587]

>>19610559
>go get initiated into an Eastern Tradition then come back to Catholicism. If I find Catholicism no longer valid, i'll go Muslim.
If all you care about is a woo-license for your political opinions just go straight to Islam's pure monotheistic despotism

[Anonymous No.19610594]

>"If all you care about is a woo-license for your political opinions just go straight to Islam's pure monotheistic despotism"

[Anonymous No.19610597]

>>19610587
who knows? that could be the final redpill of the journey

[Anonymous No.19610622]

>>19610594
Seethe all you like. I'm right.
>>19610597
Yes, the tradlarp to islam pipeline is a hundred years old

[Anonymous No.19610627]

>>19610622

[Anonymous No.19610633]

>>19608566
Nice cope, anything of worth in Indian Buddhist philosophy was written by Brahmins.

Nagarjuna, Dharamakirti, Chandrakirti, Bodhisena.

Your welcome, westoid mleccha. You will never escape the shadow of Brahminism.

[Anonymous No.19610637]

>>19610633
>the brahmins became Buddhists
Yeah that's my point isn't it?

[Anonymous No.19610638]

>>19610633
This kills the Buddhist.

[Anonymous No.19610643]

>>19610559
>go get initiated into an Eastern Tradition then come back to Catholicism. If I find Catholicism no longer valid, i'll go Muslim.
It'll take at least a decade or two to reach such a goal, but this is the most interesting path to me
Sounds quite reasonable. Best of luck anon, I know that I myself am just a small part into my journey

[Anonymous No.19610647]

>>19610637
More like we created anything of worth in Buddhism as well as anything of worth in Vedanta. You will always follow what we did, fuck off or learn some respect mleccha. You should thank Brahmins for giving you a literature and a coherent philosophy while Siddhartha kept seething about caste for no reason, just like modern western "buddhists"

[Anonymous No.19610650]

>>19610559
>go get initiated into an Eastern Tradition then come back to Catholicism. If I find Catholicism no longer valid, i'll go Muslim. It'll take at least a decade or two to reach such a goal, but this is the most interesting path to me
Sounds quite reasonable. Best of luck anon, I know that I myself am just a small part into my journey. Sorry messed up the greentext before, been a long day

[Anonymous No.19610658]

>>19610650
thanks bro, good luck to you too...
may I ask what path you are currently on?

[Anonymous No.19610665]

>>19610658
I myself am Muslim, hoping to find initiation amoung the one of the Tariqas, but there are not many genuine ones around

[Anonymous No.19610672]

>>19610665
u r indian muslim?
what kind of tariqa interests you?

[Anonymous No.19610680]

>>19610672
No im European.

>what kind of tariqa interests you?
The Bektashi are the ones that interest me the most because I am Shia. Out of all of I think the Shadhili are probably the best, but the Naqshbandi would be the easiest to get into

[Anonymous No.19610682]

>>19610680
what do you think of these guys? https://sufipathoflove.com/

they get posted on here from time to time and i've watched a bunch of their videos and consumed a lot of their content

[Anonymous No.19610697]

>>19610682
Yeah iv seem them posted around, I think one anon even tried to get initiated with them (of that I heard nothing after as to his success). They seem ok, but I am not sure of how genuine they really are. Then again I have not looked into them in great detail, so perhaps I should.

[Anonymous No.19610701]

>>19610647
>while Siddhartha kept seething about caste for no reason
Anti-caste rhetoric is minimal in the nikayas so I'm not sure who is seething here other than the ressentiment-filled priest larper I'm responding to.

[Anonymous No.19610727]

>>19610117
>That two Yogacara-Madhyamikas and a Tibetan were unclear about what made AV novel in regards to Hindu theology and got stuck on one of its arcane points, such point being ultimately dependent on "just believe me, the vedas say so," is perhaps to their credit in the long run
The point that Advaita's notion of consciousness is at odds with sahopalambha is not an arcane point but is a very basic and introductory fact regarding their explanation of consciousness & mind, without which someone cannot even begin to critique their explanation, lest they end up attacking something else entirely that is imaginary and not held by Advaitins, which is what the Buddhists ended up doing. And it's not taught just because "the vedas say so", but the Advaita position on consciousness is supplemented with many refined arguments, the Buddhist doctrine of sahopalambha was refuted by Shankara and other Advaitins who wrote about its logical contradictions and how our experience shows that its wrong.

[Anonymous No.19610732]

>>19610559
I forgot to mention is that if you have an attachment to catholicism you should look at Coomaswamy's son Rama (who was a Traditionalist like his father). He was a Catholic and I heard that after Vatican II he became a Sedevacantist, perhaps there will be something relevant to you in his work

[Anonymous No.19610740]

>>19610697
>>19610732
good luck homie
>Rama P COOOOOM
it's funny you mention him because he never gets talked about on /lit/.

Rama is essentially the final boss for me.

The muslim question for my spiritual quest hitches on Rama's writings. If he says Catholicism is dead then i'll go full Sufi and maybe join you.
However, it was the /trad/ition I was born into so I will properly explore it before making such a decision

[Anonymous No.19610742]

>>19610727
>our experience shows that its wrong
Experience can be invoked in defense of impermanence moreso than Shankara's inability to count past the number one. It doesn't matter what "many refined arguments" you have in support of what is not true

[Anonymous No.19610747]

>>19610740
Yeah its a shame because hes pretty good.

>The muslim question for my spiritual quest hitches on Rama's writings. If he says Catholicism is dead then i'll go full Sufi and maybe join you.
Spend as much time as you need thinking on it, its not something to be rushed into
Safe travels anon

[Anonymous No.19610806]

>>19610742
>Experience can be invoked in defense of impermanence
That's not actually true, because the nature of our awareness only allows impermanence to be affirmed about the things that present themselves to awareness as its objects, but awareness never apprehends, detects or confirms it own impermanence.

[Anonymous No.19610815]

>>19610806
>awareness never apprehends, detects or confirms it own impermanence.
Awareness is always of an object of that type you conceded to, so I am quite literally right whereas you are speculating and require the vedas to go further

[Anonymous No.19610849]

>>19610815
>Awareness is always of an object of that type you conceded to, so I am quite literally right whereas you are speculating and require the vedas to go further
Advaita and the Vedas say that we encounter objects in association with awareness during the waking state, and that awareness also persists in the absence of these, so the point that we are aware of objects while awake is not an example of something about experience that contradicts what Advaita teaches, since this is perfectly in accordance with what they say is normal for embodied beings. When underlying non-dual awareness occurs alongside false maya objects, the indiscriminating erroneously imagine that awareness as being conditioned by those objects.

On the other hand, the Buddhist premise that nothing can be affirmed as unchanging and that all is impermanent even our own being, selfhood, awareness etc is directly contradicted by our experience as the constant presence to which are revealed in succession the changing mental-physical sensations.

[Anonymous No.19610864]

>>19610849
>our experience as the constant presence to which are revealed in succession the changing mental-physical sensations.
You don't have one. Or did you not have a father?

[Anonymous No.19610950]

>>19610864
>>our experience as the constant presence to which are revealed in succession the changing mental-physical sensations.
>You don't have one. Or did you not have a father?
I do, because awareness is seamlessly, effortlessly and spontaneously present in all moments without interruption , the light of knowledge by which everything appears. The physical body does have a father, awareness has no beginning. We don't have positive first-hand confirmation that awareness came into existence with this body but the memory which is available to awareness at present only extends a certain length back. This lack of mental recollection is not an direct and experiential confirmation of the fact that one was unaware before this body however and we have instances of people being aware and doing things requiring intelligence but then losing memory of it afterwards (blacking out while drunk etc) so we have first-hand confirmation of the constancy of our own innermost awareness but we never have direct confirm of the impermanence of awareness. You have implied that we have experiential confirmation of the impermanence of awareness, but when analyzed your example turned out to be an inference and not something that is actually experienced. Experience confirms alone that awareness is immediate and constant, and all examples to the contrary have to be cited on the basis of dubious inferences etc.

[Anonymous No.19611008]

Pantheism is for faggots and trannies. Imagine wanting to be something while being what you are at the same time.

[Anonymous No.19611046]

>>19610950
>Experience confirms alone that awareness is immediate and constant, and all examples to the contrary have to be cited on the basis of dubious inferences etc.
Lol, if you want dubious, try "the physical body does have a father, awareness has no beginning." Please if you will, prove this awareness of yours which takes no objects but itself is eternal. I'll wait. If you have trouble remembering those experiences of your past lives I'll give you some more time. I am curious what non-dogmatic extra-Vedic means you have of demonstrating this.

[Anonymous No.19611122]

>>19611046
>Lol, if you want dubious, try "the physical body does have a father, awareness has no beginning."
That's not dubious, it's the limits of what we confirm in experience. We can confirm that bodies emerge from wombs, but we cannot confirm in our experience whether awareness begins in someone else or whether it enters into them from elsewhere, and we don't have any real experience or confirmation of any proposed beginning to the existence of our own awareness, but we only have a lack of memory which isn't the same thing. The only things that experience confirms about awareness is that it is constant and everything else has to be inferred on the basis of something else.

At the end of the day, the Vedic model of Atman being constant, self-knowing, luminous, effortless awareness is more in line with how our experience of being aware actually takes place—experience confirming the immediacy and constancy of awareness alone—the Buddhist model in contrast dogmatically starts by denying something that is naturally self-evident and confirmed in our lived experience (continuity of being qua awareness) as an illusion, but is unable to give a logical or even vaguely plausible account of how this illusion of it as such takes place. In a way, it's life-denying.

[Anonymous No.19611198]

>>19611122
>we cannot confirm in our experience whether awareness begins [...] we don't have any real experience or confirmation of any proposed beginning [...] only have a lack of memory which isn't the same thing.
Yeah we just forgot we were immortal. Ok. That's your brilliant response to the obvious fact of the impermanence of objects of awareness, that you've forgotten that you used to be eternally aware of nothing at all? And this reification of nothing into God is NOT life-denying? Your little jab at the end is ridiculous considering you believe the entirety of life is just brahman tricking you/himself until you forget it again

[Anonymous No.19611246]

>>19611198
>Yeah we just forgot we were immortal. Ok. That's your brilliant response to the obvious fact of the impermanence of objects of awareness, that you've forgotten that you used to be eternally aware of nothing at all?
Not nothing but before that there were previous bodies, our present body typically doesn't remember the events of those bodies. And when liberation occurs and the body dies awareness continues as eternal self-disclosing awareness-bliss. And yes, this doesn't involve any claim that is directly contradicted by our lived experience, unlike the Buddhist denial of the continuity of awareness does. There is direct experiential confirmation of what Advaitins say about the uninterrupted continuous being of awareness and no confirmation of what the Buddhists say.

[Anonymous No.19611302]

>>19611246
I don't think you even read what you are saying. You live in a Chinese room if you think any experience which we can mutually discuss confirms immortality of consciousness beyond birth and death and therefore permanent awareness, by which you mean enduring non-awareness of objects, and that this means momentariness is refuted as contrary to experience. That is the most ridiculous defense of indo-thomism you've offered up yet, that it is validated by experience.

[Anonymous No.19611308]

>>19611008
Cool. Not sure what pantheism has to do with Adi Shankara. Are you sure you're in the right thread?

[Anonymous No.19611360]

>>19611302
>That is the most ridiculous defense of indo-thomism you've offered up yet
I'm not talking about Indo-Thomism or the origin of the universe at the moment but was just talking about whether or not awareness is continuous, did you lose track of the conversation? There's no need to engage in histrionics and misconstrue what I am saying with, the fundamental truth here is that what Advaita says about awareness being always immediate and continuous is confirmed by our experience and is self-evident, whereas the Buddhists position is contradicted by our experience, which is why the Buddhists say that its a delusion/illusion *to begin with* (presupposing that we have first-hand experience of this illusion as such which can even be considered false) hence their denial of a persisting self or knower, that's true independent of any other consideration about Advaita and their other positions. Even if you want to rant and seethe about muh Vedas and muh Brahmins it wont change the fact that there is no confirmation or experiential validation of that Buddhist position, among others. Buddhism "gives way on all sides, like the walls of a well, dug in sandy soil. It has, in fact, no foundation whatever to rest upon and hence the attempts to use it as a guide in the practical concerns of life are mere folly" - Śaṅkarācārya, Brahmasūtrabhasya 2.2.32

[Anonymous No.19611414]

>>19611360
>gives way on all sides, like the walls of a well, dug in sandy soil. It has, in fact, no foundation whatever to rest upon and hence the attempts to use it as a guide in the practical concerns of life are mere folly
This is just silly. You have offered nothing in favor of your own baseless assertion of a permanent awareness outside of awareness of objects except for "Advaita Vedanta says x and this is confirmed by experience." It is not. When you were pressed you said not being able to remember eternity did not rule out eternity. So why speak of what you have neither knowledge of nor an ability to demonstrate. You think you've dug a more firm well but failed to notice you were in a latrine. Perhaps you ought to more finely tune your awareness.

[Anonymous No.19611511]

>>19606464
Isn't this just Buddhism, with you and God being one and the world being illusory?
Dunno, I was raised a Madhwa (dvaita), and it just makes more sense to me that you and God are separate.

[Anonymous No.19611900]

>>19611511
you are correct on all accounts, god and the individual being one is a metaphor at best but never the truth

[Anonymous No.19612002]

Bhagavad Gita came before Buddhism so there you have what is importanr to know.

[Anonymous No.19612020]

>>19610849
>our experience as the constant presence to which are revealed in succession
Sleepless dream contradicts you.

[Anonymous No.19612027]

>>19612002
Your post only lets us know what an uneducated fuck you are.

[Anonymous No.19612029]

>>19612020
There is no sleepless dream, you merely don't remember it, it's that simple.

[Anonymous No.19612036]

>>19612027
>muuh muuh you are an uneducated fuck
Alright. Tell me, what's worth more, a practicing hindu who is aware right now and loves or an educated buddhist who gets angry on 4chan

[Anonymous No.19612044]

>>19612029
Embarassingly wrong. Brain waves contradict you.

[Anonymous No.19612048]

>>19612036
>muh feels
I accept your concession

[Anonymous No.19612103]

>>19612029
sleepless dream not dreamless sleep

[Anonymous No.19612977]

bump

[Anonymous No.19612996]

>>19606464
Erm, does this ancient scripture follow modern copyright law? all content must be produced by one person, i simply cannot read it unless it does.. imagine all the profits that he stole from all that PLAGARIZED intellectual property..

[Anonymous No.19613039]

Even such renowned scholars were humbled by the great Acharya and, thus, brought to accept the Advaita doctrine, for which the Vedas stand. Thus, he uprooted all perverse sects. Various misleading sectaries like Saktas, Pasupatas, Kshapanakas, Kapalikas and Vaishnavas had inflicted wounds on the body of Vedic religion by their perverse interpretations. It was to save the true spirit of the Vedas from destructive encroachments that he took to the path of fierce polemics and not for gaining renown as a great dialectician. For, the crocodile of craze for renown can never devour an omniscient one like him. The highway of Advaita, laid first by the four-faced Brahma, trodden by his sons Sanaka and the other Kumaras, and maintained carefully by sages like Valmiki, was, in course of time covered with thorny shrubs of dualistic pseudo-religions, which the Acharya cleared, so that seekers of liberation could tread that path in safety and with ease. Just as the 'six mothers' brought up Shanmukha tenderly with all attention, so did the great spiritual and ethical virtues like peace, forbearance, renun- ciation and others foster the growth of Sankara. And, just as Shanmukha liberated the Devas from the fear of Taraka and his hosts, Sankara destroyed the tribe of vociferous atheists feeding and fattening themselves on all kinds of filthy doctrines, and saved the true spiritual seekers from their oppressive fear. No sooner was his bugle sounded, than the atheistic Charvakas took to their heels; the followers of Kanada lost sight of their way in the cloud of dust they raised; and, so, also, the Sankhyas and the followers of Patanjali ran helter-skelter, abandoning their spirit of confrontation. For, who on earth or heaven can stand in a battle Of disputation before that mighty intellect and tower of spiritual strength? The resounding drum-beat announcing the Acharya's victory over Mandana had blown like a fierce wind

[Anonymous No.19613046]

through the forest of the ears of numerous atheistical sophists, and then lit up a conflagration that became a fierce and roaring forest fire, cosuming all the wild growth of perverse doctrines therein. The Buddhists ran away pell-mell when confronted by him in controversy; the followers of Kanada took shelter in obscure comers; the disciples of Gautama dissolved in darkness; the sect of Kapila lost all its glamour; and the followers of Patanjali sur- rendered to him with hands in salutation. In all the three worlds, who is there that can equal Sankara, the emperor of the spiritual realm? Some ofhis controversial antagonists like the followers of Kanada, whose philosophy accepts the Vedas, came to his way of thinking and ended with a friendly shake of hands, while others like the atheistical Charvakas -sustained disastrous defeat and disappeared from the philosophical arena. All the followers of the Vedas joined his_ ranks and became devoted followers of the path leading to Brahman proclaimed.in the UpanishadS. Ah! Wonderfui are both the power and the mercy of this prince among the Sannyasins! A veritable flame of BadavanaIa (submarine fire) to the ocean of peace and other spiritual excellences; a fierce wind threatening to scatter the clouds of truth; a fire burning up the tree of faith; the fourteenth day of the black fortnight for the moonlight of kindliness; a full moon night to the lotus of forbear- ance; and a rainy season to the swan of virtue-such was the nature of the vicious sophistries which met with their doom at the hands of this 'king of staff-holders' (Dandiswara, Dandi being another term for Sannyasin having the staff as his emblem). A mass of rain clouds showering the ambrosial downpour of Advaitic thought, the activities of this supreme teacher put an end to the spiritual famine caused by the n:J.isdeeds of Buddhist Bhikshus and the fierce summer heart radiating from the atheistic doctrines preached by some other-sectaries. The Acharya's dialectics crushed the new sprouts of atheism put forth by the Jaina sect of Digambaras, who are the servants of the Patanjala- sect, the spittoon-holders for the Kapalikils; the gate-keepers of the sect of Kanada, and the orchestra for the king of Kshapanakas. Thus, through the teachings-of the genuine philosophy augmented by his spiritual lustre, this holy personage, Sri Sankara, plastered all forms of dualistic doctrines, erased all doubts and disbelief and removed the darkness of ignorance from the minds of men.

[Anonymous No.19613136]

>>19606464
My diary desu

[Anonymous No.19613195]

>>19613039
>>19613046
Ah it's the pokemon battle theologian again. Shankarachu i choose you

[Anonymous No.19613218]

>>19608566
Shankara... broken

[Anonymous No.19613250]

>>19613218
Shankara refuting the Buddhist hylics:

>In all the eastern and southern regions the tÏrthikas (non-Buddhists) prospered and the Buddhists were going down . . . there lived two brothers who were the acaryas of the tÏrthikas. One of them was called Dattatrai (Dattetreya). He was specially in favour of samadhi. The second was Śaṅkarācārya, who propitiated Mahadeva. He chanted spells on a jar placed behind a curtain. From within the jar emerged Mahadeva up to his neck and taught him the art of debate. In Bhamgala he entered into debates. The elders among the bhikshus said, ‘It is difficult to defeat him. So acarya Dharmapala or CandragomÏ or CandrakÏrti should be invited to contest in debate.’ The younger panditas did not listen to this and said, ‘The prestige of the local panditas will go down if a debater is brought from somewhere else. We are more skilled than they are.’ Inflated with vanity, they entered into debate with Śaṅkarācārya. In this the Buddhists were defeated and, as a result, everything belonging to the twenty-five centres of the Doctrine was lost to the tÏrthikas and the centres were deserted. About five hundred upasakas (buddhist monks) had to enter the path of the tÏrthikas.
- Taranatha, “dpal dus kyi 'khor lo'i chos bskor gyi byung khungs nyer mkho” (History of Buddhism in India)

[Anonymous No.19613298]

>>19613250
Have you ever even been in an actual debate or witnessed one? Being better at arguing doesn't make you correct. I mean if that were true, that winning a debate confers truth, you'd have to give up theology as it has been so thoroughly humilated by Kant and others that it never really recovered, and as a speaker of a modern Western language you have no excuse for claiming you have knowledge of any gods or their attributes.

[Anonymous No.19613374]

>>19613298
What an asinine post, plenty of western philosophers and theologians have penned responses to and critiques of Kant that they consider refutations of his arguments against western theology, I don’t find very convincing any attempt to dismiss these out of hand and maintain a priori that all their refutations of his arguments are incorrect. And in any case, Kant’s engagement with western theology is of little relevance for a discussion about Hindu theology and metaphysics which is quite different from the theology etc that Kant had any knowledge of like Thomism, it typically doesn’t make the exact same claims that western theology does. It sounds like you are just some vacuous western nihilist who is constantly seething about Christianity and bringing that baggage with you into threads about eastern philosophy. Instead of seething about Christians and Thomism for the millionth time maybe you should try reading some of Hindu thinkers and texts mentioned in these threads so your contribution to them doesn’t consist of projecting your atheism vs theism hangup onto everything and you might end up having something actually interesting to say for once.

[Anonymous No.19613434]

>>19613374
>my theologian isn't like the others
I mean they are all talking about what they know nothing about, right? You're being an orientalist if you think he is exempt. Feel free to appreciate Vedanta but don't pretend it isn't theology. Theology has been retroactively refuted, just letting you know, since you care so much about winning teams.