Guenon on Buddhism

He is citing the suttas but where are these translations coming from? He just copies and pastes the translations in the description, with no source as to where he's getting them from, unless he translated it himself, but then I'd be hesitant to trust the translations of a guy on youtube.

he translated them himself, yes. he is self described as one of the handful of legitimate ancient pali translators in the world, among other things. despite how he appears, he knows what he's talking about.

Is there any reason I should believe this other than taking his word for it?

use your own judgement. if what he's saying lines up or doesn't line up with your previous conceptions, then take note of that and learn from it.

It doesn't line up with my understanding. I read the translations by the Pali Text Society. How do you suggest I learn from this?

thats all i can really tell you, i'm an acolyte myself. i think my faith in his teachings about buddhism stems from a historical understanding. there really isn't such a thing as 'buddhism' or 'hinduism', these are western conceptions that stem from mistranslations and the need to categorize traditions to make them easier to understand.

Are you suggesting that Buddhism and Hinduism as we know them are ultimately the same sort of thing, falling under the umbrella of Eastern/Indian tradition, and that to distinguish any real separation between them is arbitrary?

yeah, although differentiating between different sects/schools of thought is obviously useful. theravada is not mahayana is not zen

lol

Attached: SCOTTAUKERMAN_0417_IFC.jpg.300x450_q100.jpg (300x450, 96K)

Can I get a quick rundown on this guy and the reasons for why he has been shilled so heavily for the past few weeks?

Dude's a photographer not a scholar?

But anyway people often fetishise Eastern religions as being more logically coherent or otherwise better than Christianity when really they have more of the same bullshit but just less well known.

Sad right-wing schizo NEET /pol/tard racist nationalist whiteboi shitposts Guenon nonstop to distract from the depressing horror that is his own mind and life and convince himself that he alone is enlightened

This user sounds harsh but it is true that Guenon-poster is more often than not extremely mean to the people who challenge his ideas in even a polite manner - he is very condescending and resorts to insults and swearing.
Not someone to take spiritual advice from IMO

This begs the question, why would translators leave the parts about Buddha's way being the path to Brahman out, or translating anatta as no-self instead of not-self?

Begs the question means petitio principii or circular reasoning

It doesn't mean "raises the question" or "suggests the question"

I don't mean to be a pedant but some day you will avoid looking dumb to a smug person because I told you this

To be fair, translators (at least the good ones, like Pali Text Society) almost universally translate anatta as not-self, not no-self. However, you will find that in translations of the suttas by these same translators, the Buddha refuses to acknowledge the metaphysically existing or non-existing status of a self outside of experiential reality (or the metaphysically existing/non-existing status of anything at all outside of experience).
I have only ever seen translation of "holy life" as "path to Brahman", however, coming from these obscure fringe traditionalist types like the one user linked, who try to link Buddhism to neoplatonist + Vedantin metaphysics, and never from any other translators.

the distinction comes from a misunderstanding of what that word means, which buddhism as a whole completely changes based on your understanding of it. the translators didn't understand that anatta is everything but your 'soul', which is the only thing that can reach the absolute. they are materialists who believe incorrectly in annihilation of the soul with the body, which ultimately makes the rest of their beliefs wrong as well.

I wouldn't be so sure that translating anatta as not-self necessitates that there is in fact something that IS self.

****and at the same time it doesn't suggest that there is NO self

i need to go to sleep, but i think you missed the point. this stuff is difficult to understand, the translators misunderstood. "no self" does imply a lack of self, and "the path to brahman" could be correctly translated as the path to the absolute, or incorrectly translated to merely be the path of the 'gods'.

Why is Guenon's face so unsettling

I would at least ask, if there is indeed a self outside of transitory experience - is it not useless to consider it conceptually before it is realized firsthand? Wouldn't accepting the metaphysical self conceptually only be grounds for self-clinging, obstructing true realization? Would it not be better for one to just dig through all of experience, going "not-self, not-self" until the supposed true self is realized through direct knowledge?

Gonna unpack the can of worms still?

>Why did Guenon eventually conclude that Buddhism was just a continuation of the Upanishadic teachings?
Have you read the Upanishads? If you've studied them closely along with Buddhism it becomes quite clear that most of the major concepts in Buddhism predate it and in fact appear in the pre-Buddhist Upanishads. To quote a post in another thread "The pre-Buddhist upanishads already equate ignorance with suffering, fear etc and describe transmigration, they talk about how all of phenomenal existence is perishable and how ultimate freedom/satisfaction is not to be found in phenomenal existence, they describe the realization of a higher truth pertaining to that which is undecaying, unborn, unconditioned, which is ineffable and beyond all phenomenal existence, from which thought and speech turn back, which upon realization of engenders bliss, freedom from desire, suffering and fear, they enjoin monastic existence, all of this is found in the Upanishads dating from before he lived." If you remove the stuff predating Buddha there is not much left of note in the PC.

Also, Guenon would not have considered it "a continuation of X" but the same eternal truth expressing itself in different ways according to time & circumstance etc in two different instances. An important thing to keep in mind is that Guenon considered that two different doctrines which ostensibly disagree on their ontology or whatever could still hypothetically in certain cases could be two different ways of approaching the same very real and identical achievement/liberation/etc for example also writes about how Vishishtadvaita is ultimately another way of approaching Advaita despite their long history of argument with one another.

>Why did he believe that Buddhism in its earliest form taught of the Brahman, the soul, the path to immortality...etc
this guy in this video is correct , in the early nikayas Buddha does in areas refer to himself as a knower of the vedas, describes his path as being similar to the knowers of brahma, he talks about the immortal in a positive way in areas, this is sorta the "dirty little secret" of buddhism which theravadins usually gloss over by saying "uhh this is all upaya or he meant all this as eulogy and it just had to do with the context but really he taught an extinction etc". Regardless of how you interpret these though, Buddha did not in any way refute or even really object to the ideas of the Upanishads, none of the stuff he argues against resembles them, among the views mentioned and rejected in the Brahmajala Sutta (Digha Nikaya, 1), the Upanisadic view of the Atma is not included. Guenon's views on Buddhism at its origin being "traditional" has more to do with the various Mahayana texts that Coomaraswamy and Pallis mailed to him though and less so to do with this aspect (although he was aware of it and did write about it in some instances).

>I've seen some very obscure translations around of suttas from the Pali Canon which lean towards Buddhism being a sort of proto-Vedanta - is this what people are getting this from?
There are multiple reasons why people link Buddhism to the Upanishads (which are themselves proto-Vedanta) and Vedanta; among them that many concepts Buddha talked about already appear in them; that because of these passages in the PC where Buddha speaks about the immortal or brahma etc, but also because of later Mahayana texts which in their metaphysics sometimes (but not always) come closer to resembling Vedanta and because of the possibility that these in some way might reflect what Buddha actually taught. When you examine all three together it becomes kinda obvious there is some level of fire under all the smoke.

>It is already clear that Mahayana (and later) texts and teachings came historically after the Pali Canon. Is the idea that Mahayana was a rough return to form of some sort of pre-Pali Canon Buddhism? Or is the claim that everyone is just mis-translating the PC texts and that Buddhism taught Brahman and the soul all along?
There is plausible evidence to support both to some degree, it's a real mess. Per the former aspect some orally-transmitted Mahayana doctrines/texts were first written down in the 1st-2rd century AD only a few hundreds years after the PC was first put in writing, so it's within the realm of possibility that multiple independent oral transmissions of genuine teachings could have happened in each case. Various scholars have posited that certain aspects of pre-sectarian Buddhism survived better in Mahayana despite the occasional seemingly-extravagent add-ons, this is not at all an unheard-of position in Buddhist scholarship.

Also I'll note, while a bunch of virgin armchair scholars are arguing online about anatta and Buddhism and how Mahayana is related, the Chad Theravadin Buddhists in Thailand are straight up saying Buddha taught of a true self or Atma

>In Thai Theravada Buddhism, for example, states Paul Williams, some modern era Buddhist scholars have claimed that "nirvana is indeed the true Self", while other Thai Buddhists disagree.[77] For instance, the Dhammakaya Movement in Thailand teaches that it is erroneous to subsume nirvana under the rubric of anatta (non-self); instead, nirvana is taught to be the "true self" or dhammakaya.[78]
>...The abbot of one major temple in the Dhammakaya Movement, Luang Por Sermchai of Wat Luang Por Sodh Dhammakayaram, argues that it tends to be scholars who hold the view of absolute non-self, rather than Buddhist meditation practitioners. He points to the experiences of prominent forest hermit monks to support the notion of a "true self".[80] Similar interpretations on the "true self" were put forth earlier by the 12th Supreme Patriarch of Thailand in 1939. According to Williams, the Supreme Patriarch's interpretation echoes the tathāgatagarbha sutras.[81]
>Several notable teachers of the Thai Forest Tradition have also described ideas in contrast to absolute non-self. Ajahn Maha Bua, a well known meditation master, described the citta (mind) as being an indestructible reality that does not fall under anattā.[82] He has stated that not-self is merely a perception that is used to pry one away from infatuation with the concept of a self, and that once this infatuation is gone the idea of not-self must be dropped as well.[83] American monk Thanissaro Bhikkhu of the Thai Forest Tradition describes the Buddha's statements on non-self as a path to awakening rather than a universal truth.[57] Thanissaro Bhikkhu states that the Buddha intentionally set the question of whether or not there is a self aside as a useless question, and that clinging to the idea that there is no self at all would actually prevent enlightenment.[84]
>Scholars Alexander Wynne and Rupert Gethin also take a similar position as Thanissaro Bhikkhu, arguing that the Buddha's description of non-self in the five aggregates do not necessarily mean there is no self, stating that the five aggregates are not descriptions of a human being but phenomena for one to observe. Wynne argues that the Buddha's statements on anattā are a "not-self" teaching rather than a "no-self" teaching.[85]
>Thanissaro Bhikkhu points to the Ananda Sutta, where the Buddha stays silent when asked whether there is a 'self' or not,[86] as a major cause of the dispute.[87] In Thailand, this dispute on the nature of teachings about 'self' and 'non-self' in Buddhism has led to arrest warrants, attacks and threats.[88]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatta

A clear difference between Nibbana and Brahman, however, would be that Nibbana is never described as the original source/cause from which all things arise, unlike Brahman.
Also unlike Brahman, the Buddha directly says that Nibbana is not-self:
>he recognises Nibbāna[30] as Nibbāna;
>having recognised Nibbāna as Nibbāna,
>he thinks of Nibbāna,[31]
>he thinks (of the self) in (regard to) Nibbāna,
>he thinks (of self as) Nibbāna,
>he thinks, 'Nibbāna is mine.'
>He rejoices in Nibbāna.

>What is the reason for this?

>I say that it is not thoroughly understood by him.
- MN 1

>in the early nikayas Buddha does in areas refer to himself as a knower of the vedas, describes his path as being similar to the knowers of brahma
Unless you can provide other translations that aren't from obscure fringe youtubers, I'll be admittedly hesitant to accept this.
>these passages in the PC where Buddha speaks about the immortal or brahma
Again, these only seem to come up in these obscure fringe interpretations - unless you have other, potentially more trust-able translators saying the same things.
>There is plausible evidence to support both to some degree, it's a real mess. Per the former aspect some orally-transmitted Mahayana doctrines/texts were first written down in the 1st-2rd century AD only a few hundreds years after the PC was first put in writing, so it's within the realm of possibility that multiple independent oral transmissions of genuine teachings could have happened in each case.
I remain convinced that the Pali Canon contains the definitive earliest teachings, especially after seeing that long post in the other thread explaining how its contents indicate that it came earlier
>American monk Thanissaro Bhikkhu of the Thai Forest Tradition describes the Buddha's statements on non-self as a path to awakening rather than a universal truth.[57] Thanissaro Bhikkhu states that the Buddha intentionally set the question of whether or not there is a self aside as a useless question, and that clinging to the idea that there is no self at all would actually prevent enlightenment.
I can get entirely on board with this. The Buddha did say both concepts of being and not-being, self and no-self, existence and non-existence....etc had to be abandoned for one to realize Nibbana. I certainly won't argue that there is no definitive self, but I also won't say there definitely is a self. I agree with this post:
I think conceptual self-view would only serve to be a hindrance, and would only obstruct perception of the supposed "True Self" if that is the case anyways.
That's my low effort reply for the night, thanks for your help and discussion, though! Goodnight

based and red-pilled

Here is something interesting to consider, even though it is written by a Western secularist:
dharmaoverground.org/dharma-wiki/-/wiki/Main/MCTB No-Self vs. True Self

His midface is too long and that makes you dwell on it, which in turn makes his eyes look staring and mad due to the unblinking effect of a photography being alien to the human instincts.

>especially after seeing that long post in the other thread explaining how its contents indicate that it came earlier
which leaves out all the stuff about how it was the proto-hinayana sthaviras who broke away from the tradition at the 2nd council while it was the proto-mahayana mahasamghika who were in favor in keeping things the same and yadda yada yada etc and so on, there is another aspect to all this which that poster would prefer people to not know about

In this case, why are people ripping on that Buddhism chart? It only contains the Pali Canon, Nagarjuna (who AFAIK isn't refuted by the Vedantins, but rather his later followers of the Madhyamaka school who poorly attempted to add onto his ideas, were refuted), Nyananada (who you will find adheres strictly to the PC moreso than any Theravadins), a cosmology book and a few meditation books.

I'm confused, before we were using the suttas of the PC as the standard for the earliest teachings, and there were even claims that it contains teachings perfectly in line with the Upanishads itself. Now, it seems that the PC is just Hinayana, and that the Mahayana sutras are the earlier teaching?

Because it presents itself as a mostly Theravada chart but is often posted as the general "Buddhism chart" while omitting Tibetian, Chinese, and Japanese Buddhism as well as most Indian Mahayana. Not everyone who rips on it is a Hindu or troll or whatever, there are a lot of people who seriously read Mahayana, Zen, Tibetian etc who roll their eyes a bit when they see it.

The Theravada PC is just the standard preferred way to read the tripitaka in English, but most of the same material is also preserved by the Mahayana schools independently in Chinese and some other languages, where they are known as the Agamas instead of the Nikayas. It is from studying both canons as well as other texts which they consider to possibly have elements of genuine teachings that scholars study 'pre-sectarian' Buddhism; more than several have written about how there is the real possibility of genuine teachings of Buddha from this era only surviving to a real extent in Mahayana. Under both the Theravada and Mahayana gloss on the recorded words of the Buddha, there are immense similarities with the pre-Buddhist Upanishads in ideas, motifs, etc although to whatever degree these specific Mahayana teachings existed they seem to have been even closer to Vedanta/Upanishads than the other already mentioned general similarities shared between the Upanishads and all of Buddhism. To the extent that people degrade the PC it's moreso the gloss and assumption of meaning added by Theravada commentators and less so the shared material also found in the Agamas; although there are certainly people who say this isn't enough or the best and that you need Dzogchen or Zen or Nagarjuna or whatever.

Guenon is for white pedo discord racists

to the contrary, it's the discord trannies who seem to take the most issue with him

We have said above that Mahayana arose as a logical necessity
to remove the inner contradictions of Hinayana. The radical
pluralistic realism of Hinayana is replaced in Mahayana by an
equally radical absolutism which is the real teaching of Buddha,
for -Hinayana pratityasamutpada is real causation; for the
Madhyamika and the Mula-Vijnanavada it is relative and therefore
ultimately unreal causation. For the former it is the causal law
governing the emergence and annihilation of the momentary
dharmas; for the latter it is the theory of relativity grounded in
the Absolute. For the former the momentary is the efficient and
the real; for the latter the momentary is the miserable and the
unreal. For Hinayana Buddha’s silence on the avyakrta is the
result of his denial of God, souls and matter, and his acceptance
of the reality of momentary dharmas; for Mahayana schools of
Madhyamika and Mula-Vijnanavada it is the result of his absolutism
which denies both etemalism and nihilism. For Hinayana
anatmavada is only pudgala-nairatmya or denial of self; for
Mahayana it is also dharma-nairatmya or denial of momentary
elements. For Hinayana Nirvana is an eternal uncaused or
asamskrta dharma; for Madhyamika and Mula-Vijnanavada it is the
dharmatd of all dharmas (dharmdndm dharmata), the ground reality
of all phenomena, the Absolute itself which is at once immanent
in phenomena and transcendent to all phenomena and thought constructions.

well the chart was conceived in threads where anons wanted to get as close to the original teachings of buddha as possible. It's never presented as the buddhism chart but a good buddhism chart.

Noticing that Chitta-matra or Tathagata-garbha comes very near Atma of the Upanisads, Lankavatara (Sutra) itself takes pain to distinguish it from Atma of the Non-Buddhists (Tirthika). Mahamati asks Bhagavan: Tathagatagarbha is declared by you, O Lord, to be selfluminous (prakrti-prabhdsvara), to be eternally pure (ddi-vishuddhd), to be immanent in all beings (sarva-satlva-dehantara-gatct), to be immortal (nitya), eternal (dhruvd), unchanging (shdshvatd) and blissful (shiva). Then, how, O Lord, is it not similar to Atma of the Non-Buddhists? ...... Bhagavan replies: No Mahamati, Tathagatagarbha is not similar to Atma because it transcends all categories of thought (nirvikalpa), because it is neither affirmation nor negation nor both nor neither, and because it is to be directly realised by non-dual spiritual experience (nirabhasa-prajnd-gochara), while Atma clings to affirmation and leads to etemalism. It must be remarked that this attempt to distinguish Tathagatagarbha from Atma may be applicable to Atma of those schools which take it as an eternal spiritual substance and objectify it, but this attempt proves utterly futile in respect of the Upanisadic Atma which is transcendent to thought-categories, including the categories of affirmation and negation and which is realisable by non-dual spiritual experience and which has inspired Buddha’s conception of Nirvana.

Am I the only one who imagines that mustache flying off his face?

Heres my take - Guenon, being a mystic in an age of crude materialism, DOES make some salient points about modernity/religion/philosophy etc., and he does so in a very "matter-of-fact" way using language that appeals readily to modern day westerners (we are his target audience, after all.)

With all this, I can see how one could come across his writings and then assume that you've found the "holy grail" of enlightened wisdom that will liberate you and society out of the dungheap of modern civilisation, especially considering what passes as mainstream philosophy these day tends to be sophistic skepticism. Of course, what happens next is that you take it too far, and begin to see Guenon as THE "guru", THE only sage for our times, and that you need to shill his ideas - no matter how irrelevant or better elaborated upon by someone else - they might be. It's essentially a case of entry-level cult mechanics, in my limited view.

He doesn't give arguments. He feels something is true and therefore it is.

>buddhism pre-shankara: you now see oh initiate that thou...
>buddhism post-shankara: doocacapeepee

can someone make a before hinduism after hinduism image of him with the other image of him in which he looks contemplative af almost sleepy

In that case, what do you think of the claim that Mahayana, Zen and Tibetan Buddhism are not much more than degenerated Hinduism as a result of their metaphysics therefore it's better to do away with them altogether and just study Advaita Vedanta instead?

So is this a fair summary?
That because of these fringe and obscure translations (such as the one from the photographer on youtube) that include direct teachings of the Brahman and Atta in the PC suttas, Buddhism in its earliest form hardly differs (if at all) from the Upanishads?
But at the same time, the PC isn't the best standard for "true Buddhism" because it is Hinayana and the true teachings are reflected in later Mahayana schools which share metaphysical principles with Vedanta?
Is it not possible that Early Buddhism as described in the PC maintained no metaphysical principles and ontology, and that later schools adopted similar metaphysics to Hinduism, true or not, because they wanted to explain what the Buddha didn't explain (the initial cause of arising and delusion...etc)?
As far as I can tell, the only indication that this is not possible are from these previously mentioned obscure translations of the Nikayas/Agamas in which the Buddha teaches of Brahman/Atman/Immortality.

>It's essentially a case of entry-level cult mechanics, in my limited view.

yeah, all I see in these threads is the zeal of new converts, the guenon worship is so fucking cringe

lmao shut the fuck up

Zen is a lot more than degenerated Hinduism, Zen is degenerated Taoism where Buddhism was the sieve of degeneration.

You've probably got a point, but the question still stands regarding Mahayana and Tibetan Buddhism.

>which leaves out all the stuff about how it was the proto-hinayana sthaviras who broke away from the tradition at the 2nd council while it was the proto-mahayana mahasamghika who were in favor in keeping things the same
The disagreement was regarding Vinaya rules and had nothing to do with doctrine or ideas of Absolutism.

Why do they have to be degenerated? Why can't they be approaching the same body of teachings from another angle? Not everything has to be ranked or better or worse. For some people those doctrines may work better while others may find that Hindu teachings work better for them

Why does everything have to be perennial? Why can't the differences in teaching be acknowledged between the various schools of Buddhism compared to the Agamas/Nikayas? Why can't the differences in teaching be acknowledged between the Agamas/Nikayas compared to Hinduism and Advaita Vedanta? Why does all Eastern religion and philosophy have to be "pointing at the same thing from different angles?" Such reductionism is a tendency of the Western mind.

This video explains Guenon's metaphysics well IMO:
youtu.be/gzxQgRbTesA

All philosophy is pointing at the same thing. Eastern and Western. Ancient and Modern. We are all humans. The Vedas say truth is one yet prophets speak many names etc. Bruce Lee talks about pointing the finger at the moon. This is not to deny differences. Merely accounting for our finite perspective. Differences are important to me. I like it when things are different than thousand year old religious texts say. I cannot get behind any of them. They are dated IMO even if incredibly wise in some ways we have lost. You are the one reducing differences to "degenerations" from Vedanta. Why Vedanta? You keep saying Guenon and hence Advaita is the only one pointing to the truth. Why? You have not offered any compelling evidence to support the claim aside from begging the question. Many people reject God as first principle. Many believe philosophy evolves into higher forms. Why must all philosophy be a degeneration? Why can there not be progress? Perhaps Buddhism is an improvement in the eyes of some? Does Guenon not represent progress?

Why is Buddhism a sieve of degeneration? Why does Daoism degenerate in Zen? Tibetan Buddhism has a lot of good tantric teachings. Is that degenerate Tantra? Is Tantra degenerate Advaita? Is Yoga and Sankhya degenerate Advaita? Are all orthodox schools and religions of Hinduism degenerate Advaita? Is Islam degenerate Advaita? Is Judaism degenerate Advaita? Are indigenous shamans degenerate Advaita? Is Platonism degenerate Advaita? What is Advaita a degeneration of? Did only the Indians have the perennial truth in prehistory or did it come from Atlantis or Hyperborea or Proto-Indo-Europeans?

damn he really let himself go since then

>Why does Daoism degenerate in Zen?
That's simply because Buddhism is an inferior philosophy to the Way. However, I think what you want is the *how*; the answer to that is that Zen isn't really Japanese, merely the Japanese name for Chan Buddhism, which is Chinese – most of the Zen masters preceding Hakuin are simply the Japanese names for Chinese masters. When Buddhism came to China, a strand of it began to enfold the Way, most likeIy in order to coopt existing religion for the purpose of taking over, as the Christians did with the major Roman holidays, but I think also because some of the Buddhist teachers saw value in the Way. In any case, regardless of its causes this syncretism was probably inevitable. The outcome was a form of Buddhism admittedly improved by adopting surface practices of the Way, but ruinous in that the life-hating core precepts of the Buddha are far inferior to the thinking of Chuang and Lao.

Although not familiar with the ins and outs of Buddhism to the extent where I'd feel comfortable making assertions about it, this seems somewhat analogous to the claims the Mahayana partisans are making visavi the Theravada ITT – that is, that the Theravada school is the source of self-negating, self-destroying Buddhist thought – but Chan is very much a Mahayana tradition, so personally I don't see it.

>the buddha never set up any monks or nuns
Then all the rules that we believe to be for monastic life were actually for everyone? Or are the rules set up for monks and nuns a later edition which he doesn't recognizes?

It would be very difficult to be a layperson and follow the rules of the monastics.

Attached: 1438797016625.jpg (250x250, 9K)

Vedas are where life denial comes from IMO.

>tfw Buddhism is NeoVedanta

Attached: 158.png (447x378, 11K)

at least it is not neo-advaita

why bother when the original is so good

>It is in the Upanisads that we find advaitavada well established. Acharya Shankara has logically proved that advaitavada is the central teaching of the Upanisads. In spite of the attempts of nonadvaita teachers of Vedanta, who came after Acharya Shankara, to foist their respective views on the Upanisads, advaitavada shines forth as their fundamental teaching and is too strong to be missed or misinterpreted without the obvious straining of language. Advaita accommodates the other interpretations from the phenomenal standpoint, but those who deny advaita cannot reconcile the phenomenal with the transcendent and fail to realise the true nature of the Upanisadic philosophy. The Upanisads repeatedly emphasise advaita which reveals the transcendent non-dual nature of the Real, called Brahma and identified with Atma insisting at the same time on its immanence in the phenomenal world of subject-object duality which is only its appearance through its indescribable power avidya or maya. The Upanisadic sage Yajnavalkya who explains the immanent and the transcendent nature of Brahma and says that these are the two poises of the same Brahma which is non-dual Atma—the self-shining and selfproved foundational Self, and who employs the negative dialectic (neti neti) shines forth as the first exponent of advaitavada in the world.

>Buddha knows and accepts this Upanisadic advaitavada and preaches it in the light of his own experience. His anatmavada is the denial only of the false notion of the T and the ‘mine’ (nirahahkara-nirmama-vada) which Vedanta also accepts. Buddha does not expressly identify the Absolute with the pure Self, though this implication is clearly there, for if the non-self (annatma) is perishable (anitya) and miserable (duhkha) that which is eternal and supreme bliss must be the true Self. Buddha identifies the Absolute with Nirvana and uses the same or similar epithets for it which the Upanisads use for Brahma or Atmd which is identified with Mohsa (Brahmabhavo hi Mok$ah). The Upanisadic seers and Buddha both believe that the Absolute is at once transcendent to thought and immanent in phenomena. Both take Avidya, the beginningless cosmic Ignorance as the root-cause of phenomenal existence and suffering. Both believe that thought is fraught with inherent contradictions and cannot reveal the Real which can be realised only through immediate spiritual experience. Both prefer the negative dialectic for indirecdy pointing to the inexpressible Real. For both silence is the language of the Real. The Hinayana schools missed Buddha’s advaitavada and elaborated a metaphysics of radical pluralism. The inner contradictions in their metaphysics led to the rise of the Mahayana schools of Madhyamika and Vijnanavada. The Madhyamika is the most faithful representative of Buddha. All the important aspects of Buddha’s advaitavada indicated above have been faithfully and systematically developed by the Madhyamika in his philosophy. Like Buddha, he emphasises that the Absolute is transcendent to thought and can be realised only by immediate non-dual supra-relational experience called Bodhi or Prajna-paramita and identified with Nirvana.

>Then all the rules that we believe to be for monastic life were actually for everyone?
Essentially. Christianity is the same, you know.

>It would be very difficult to be a layperson and follow the rules of the monastics.
Likewise, Luther (almost certainly incorrectly) claimed that the Sermon on the Mount was a deliberately impossible demand.

Yes, moral rigor is hard. Otherwise teachers and prophets would not be necessary.

>Essentially. Christianity is the same, you know.
What are you talking about? Christian monastic life is mainly derived from the Desert Fathers. They set up the guidelines.

Complete false equivalence.

>Essentially. Christianity is the same, you know.
That would mean the vast majority of Christians and Buddhists aren't practicing them correctly. Like what Luke 14:25 says. The teachings are only meant for a specific type of individual to follow, but when they are systemized into a religion to gain converts, the esoteric core mixes with the exoteric edifice, corrupting the teachings.

>That would mean the vast majority of Christians and Buddhists aren't practicing them correctly.
Exactly, because they both suffer from the flaw of trying to introduce previous esoteric knowledge to the wider populace; to correctly practice you have to be intellectually qualified which excludes the common majority

>Thus have I heard. Once the Fortunate One was living at Sāvatthi, in the monastery of Anāthapiṇḍika, [situated] in the Jeta's Grove. Then the Fortunate One addressed the monks: "O, monks!" They responded: "Yes, O Venerable One!" and the Fortunate One spoke thus: "Monks, I will preach to you 'everything.' Listen to it. What, monks, is 'everything'? Eye and material form, ear and sound, nose and odor, tongue and taste, body and touch, mind and concepts. These are called 'everything.' Monks, he who would say, 'I will reject this everything and proclaim another everything,' he may certainly have a theory [of his own]. But when questioned, he would not be able to answer and would, moreover, be subject to vexation. Why? Because it would not be within the range of experience.
- SN 35.23
The Buddha of the Nikayas/Agamas did not teach metaphysics. Just because Hinayana is wrong for saying there is definitely no self, that does not mean that it is right to say there definitely is a self either. Nagarjuna, Mahayana's 'second Buddha' himself, adhered strictly to the suttas on this issue, and refrained from making metaphysical claims about any Absolute, even if his later followers of Madhyamaka didn't follow in his footsteps.

huenon

You don't have to be a monk to make real progress according to the Buddha of the Majjhima Nikaya/Madhyama Āgama. A lay follower can realize attainments on the path as well, even when still enjoying sensual pleasures (obviously this is no green-light to indulge in sensuality, but you get the point):

But has the good Gotama even one layfollower
who is a disciple,
a householder clothed in white,
a Brahma-farer
who, by the utter destruction of the five fetters
binding to this lower (shore)
is of spontaneous uprising,
one who has attained Nibbāna there
and is not liable to return from that world?"

"Not merely a hundred, Vaccha,
nor two,
three,
four or five hundred,
but far more are those layfollowers,
disciples of mine,
householders clothed in white,
Brahma-farers,
who by the utter destruction of the five fetters
binding to this lower (shore),
[491] are of spontaneous uprising,
those who have attained Nibbāna there
and are not liable to return from that world." "Let be the good Gotama,
let be the monks,
let be the nuns,
let be the lay-followers
who are householders clothed in white,
Brahma-farers.

But has the good Gotama even one layfollower
who is a disciple,
a householder clothed in white,
and who, (though) an enjoyer of sense-pleasures,
is a doer of the instruction,
one who accepts the exhortation,
who has crossed over doubt
and, perplexity gone,
fares in the Teacher's instruction,
won to conviction,
not relying on others?"[4]

"Not merely a hundred, Vaccha,
nor two,
three,
four or five hundred,
but far more are these layfollowers,
disciples of mine,
householders clothed in white,
and who, (though) enjoyers of sense-pleasures
are doers of the instruction,
those who accept the exhortation,
who have crossed over doubt
and, perplexity gone,
fare in the Teacher's instruction,
won to conviction,
not relying on others."
- MN 73

One key difference in the eso/exoteric or monastic-layman lifestyles i chastity. Laymen can still have sex and have children whereas monks cannot. If the tradition would've been only kept by those who followed the esoteric teachings, and since they are chaste, would die in one generation, unless individuals of a specific character type seeked them out to join them, which is what Guenon meant by initiatic tradition. So, it would seem the exoteric shell serves a necessary evil. Though the religion may corrupt the esoteric teachings, it serves as the body preserve them and also as a way to draw converts in and test them to see if they are worthy of being initiated into the inner circle, depending on how well they follow the exoteric teachings.

Now very soon after the Blessed One began to recover.

And when he had quite got rid of the sickness,
he came out from his lodging,
and sat down in the shadow thereof on a seat spread out there.

And [107] the venerable Ānanda went to the place where the Exalted One was,
and saluted him,
and took a seat respectfully on one side,
and addressed the Exalted One, and said:

'I have beheld, lord, how the Exalted One was in health,
and I have beheld how the Exalted One had to suffer.

And though at the sight of the sickness of the Exalted One my body became weak as a creeper,
and the horizon became dim to me,
and my faculties were no longer clear,[39]
yet notwithstanding I took some little comfort from the thought that the Exalted One would not pass away until at least he had left instructions as touching the Order.'

25. 'What, then, Ānanda?

Does the Order expect that of me?

I have preached the truth without making any distinction between exoteric and esoteric doctrine;
for in respect of the truths, Ānanda,
the Tathāgata has no such thing as the closed fist of a teacher,
who keeps some things back.[40]
- Dīgha Nikāya 16

Reminder that unless you actually practice in any of these traditions and have attained some degree of spiritual attainment from doing so you can read as much text as you like but you will never understand what you are reading. These teachings are meant to be lived, not learned and philosophised about.

>That would mean the vast majority of Christians and Buddhists aren't practicing them correctly.
Yes? How is that a problem? If you can read the New Testament and the exhortations of Christ therein, then look at the average practicing Christian and think "hm yes, this makes sense, these line up and match", I don't think there's a brainlet Wojak empty-headed enough to illustrate you.

>to correctly practice you have to be intellectually qualified
This is totally untrue however, as illustrated by Christ deliberately selecting two Galilean fishermen for his first disciples. This is not a question of the intellect. The issue is that the moral life is HARD and is a CHOICE which is made deliberately and continuously. Anyone can make it. But few will.

I won't speak to Buddhism but for Christianity's part you're all wrong. Chastity as a requisite or even a moral good is something that grew up during the first centuries AD and is non-Jesus in origin (Paul makes some gestures at it, but only as a theoretical construct); most of the Apostles appear to have been married, Simon and Andrew certainly were as they "left their wives, their nets and their boats" to follow the Lord, and and the Apostolic church did not allow an unmarried man to become a deacon.

Early monasticism and eremitism in Christianity is a weird hyperpiety, produced largely by unwholesome minds.

>m-maybe if I copy and paste some more lines from the PC on Yea Forums I'll defeat my foes and show that the Buddha actually never taught any metaphysics or made any metaphysical claims, despite the obvious metaphysical nature of his spiritual Absolutism concerning Nirvana
>but-b everyone else's wrong because *you're not supposed to talk it*, your not supposed to make metaphysical claims because they're bad according to circulatory and self-serving logic; muh babbies first aphothatic theology identity crisis
>even though the ideas of Buddhism almost completely comes from the Vedas and Upanishads and just repeats their spiritual lessons with a slightly different spin, you defend this idealized concept of Buddhism completely removed from context of when it happened because you've been memed into regarding metaphysical claims as an original sin by the anglo-modernist revision of Theravada Buddhism and waste your time trying to defend your imaged pure Buddhism against the very origins of Buddhism viz Vedic knowledge which you've been inculcated to think is the dire opponent of Buddha.

Attached: buddhist-theravada-monk-in-thailand.jpg (182x359, 20K)

Christposters have joined the chat.

Ironic how you types appeal to the Pali Canon's authority when it is convenient for you (or rather, when there are obscure fringe Traditionalist translations to cherry-pick lines from), but once someone else references the PC, quoting suttas that clearly contradict your claims, it is suddenly Theravada anglo Buddhism and loses all its authority.

Attached: reputable pali scholar.png (997x748, 120K)

Attached: vedantins.jpg (850x400, 83K)

bump

Based as hell

Guenon savaged buddhism.

shhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

>Why did Guenon eventually conclude that Buddhism was just a continuation of the Upanishadic teachings?
Because he was a complete pseud. Buddhism is a branching out of the Vedic line of thought, not a direct continuation of it. This much is already known when the Buddha (allegedly) refuted the Brahmins of his time. How is it this hard to understand...

oh yea? explain this:

what is their to explain?

the people that Buddha refutes in the PC do not mention or understand the teachings of the Upanishads, and belong to the same catagory of people that Shankara refutes and who are to be excluded from the knowers of the true meaning of the Vedas. There is absolutely nothing in Buddhism which is not already contained in the Upanishads and Vedas; and it's effectively a sub-catagories of Hindu thought amounting to a less good Vedanta which meek people with materialist and egalitarian tendencies like to identify with. Read Guenon he already wrote about all this already

>There is absolutely nothing in Buddhism which is not already contained in the Upanishads and Vedas
Nirvana is unique to Buddhism

>buddhism is for materialists
lmao no wonder Guenon was a pseud

There isn't anything unique or new to how Buddha describes it, only in the combinations of descriptions used. The apophatic theology and negation that he uses all predate him and stems from the early Upanishads.

before you get converted into Traditionalism, I recommend reading some of the arguments made by Buddhist anons in this thread which have largely gone ignored

>There isn't anything unique or new to how Buddha describes it, only in the combinations of descriptions used.
is this bait? Nirvana has never been described in the upanishads/vedas the way its used in buddhism. Even if its a synthesis derived from existing sources, its still his own unique 'combination' (whatever that means).

And you kept shilling this guy as some grand author, turns out he can't get basic facts right.

...

...

Hi pat.