Can we settle this once and for all.
Which is correct Atman or Anatman?
Advaita vs Buddhism
Adam Allen
Luke Williams
If no self, nothing experiences nirvana
Leo Gutierrez
Buddha nature as preached by the Shentong Madhyamaka school is a dialectical overcoming of both, thus presenting the height of cognizable mysticism.
Which is a low hill. Buddhism isn't better because it's philosophy is better but becauses its practices are far more effective.
Levi Campbell
Advaita and Buddhism at its inception were almost the same teaching but from two different perspectives. Buddhism very clearly comes from Hindu/Upanishadic teachings, most of the key teachings of Buddhism appear first in the early pre-Buddhist Upanishads (pic related for example). Later Buddhism philosophy/schools largely misunderstood this except for a few exceptions which is where the confusion comes from for the most part. This is why Buddha never categorically denied that there was a self but only said "X is not the self", "Z is not the self", "Y is not the self" etc. Anatta means "not-self" not "no-self". Buddha actually says in one sutta that people who categorically deny the self are falling into a wrong view and the extreme of nihilism, I've seen Buddhistanon post the sutta before, you can find it on warosu or he might post it in this thread.
Indian philosophy includes 3 general types of Atma, 1) the conventional ego, 2) an eternal abiding soul substance 3) a indescribable spiritual unconditioned and unborn Absolute which is the ultimate substratum of everything, both immanent in phenomena but at the same time transcendent. Buddha only refuted and attacked the idea of the first 2, not the third type of Atma. He doesn't describe anything resembling the Upanishadic Atma once in the entire Pali Canon. It's quite clear that the Nirvana he taught (which he described with the same adjectives the Upanishads already used for Brahman/moksha) is the same transcendent Atma of the Upanishads but because Buddha followed a more stricter type of aphophatic negation he refrained from described it as Atma because that could have easily confused his followers because of how on the surface it might seem to conflict with him denying the first two types of Atma mentioned above. Suttas where Buddha states that Nirvana is "not-self" are not a rebuttal to this because in these suttas along with all other Buddha is using self in the sense of the first two terms above.
Buddhist hagiography is self-serving and confused garbage which propagates the incorrect idea that Buddha disagreed with the Upanishads teachings of Self despite him never mentioning them which is what continues the misconception. Mahayana and to some extent Vajrayana are the only schools that understood there was some existing transcendent reality Buddha taught through negation but even many of them get it wrong. A notable early example of Buddhist thinkers who understood the true meaning of Buddha's teaching is the early Yogachara of Asanga and Vasubandhu, where they regard eternal non-dual consciousness alone as (truly) real and refer to it/Nirvana as the true self and pure self. Nagarjuna under a certain interpretation shared by some academic scholars and Buddhist thinkers understood this principle as well, but that's a whole other discussion and it's less clear-cut and easier to misinterpret in his case than Yogachara.
Ryan Wright
>but becauses its practices are far more effective.
citation needed
Caleb Cook
>its practices are far more effective.
This seems to be true to me too. Buddhism have a long and effective tradition of truly negating the self. Whereas a lot of Advaita teachings almost start from the Self and then attempt a "positive negation" or whatever you want to call it which seems to for most people cause them to adhere to this lofty idea of "we're all One dude". Which is probably why most Advaita communities(at least in the west) are essentially just a continuation of the hippie communes where people are just sliding in and out of each other and going around smiling thinking about this wonderful universal Bliss.
This might not be true in a lot of places in India though, I've seen a documentary about an Advaita monastery which had a lot of westerners in it and the guru was a truly traditional Advaita teacher(the guru of Modi btw), and it seemed really rigorous and not all just some place for people to grow dreadlocks and sit around watching maggots worm around on the floor trying to Blissfully realize THEY TOO are those maggots.
Daniel Hall
>I've seen a documentary about an Advaita monastery which had a lot of westerners in it and the guru was a truly traditional Advaita teacher
Just as one wouldn't judge original/traditional/early Buddhism by the standard of how Sam Harris, Tara Brach or John "escort chaser" Yates presents it, it's a mistake to judge Advaita by the standard of how western Neo-advaitins present it. Advaita actually has a massive body of different teachings, methods of negation, meditation practices, types of yoga and visualization etc but you actually have to read through Shankara's and other traditional Advaitin works or study under a qualified teacher to learn about them. You wont learn shit about them from reading wikipedia or from listening to Mooji speak on youtube.
Dylan Miller
They're both the same essentially
Isaiah Edwards
There is no seperate self v.s. There is no self
Both point to the same happening
Bentley Baker
Is there a counterargument to this? I imagine this is not the first time this notion came up in history.
Alexander Sullivan
There isn't really a counterargument other than to repeat that the Buddhist history of interpreting his teachings dont regard them as such, however I consider this to be kind of a non-argument. It ignores that the entire rantong vs shentong debate and the debates about the nature of tathagatagarbha/dharmadhatu that took place in Mahayana/Vajrayana was basically an internal Buddhist debate that was a proxy for this exact discussion and there were numerous schools who ended up accepting a quasi-Upanishadic understanding of Nirvana/Tathagatagarbha etc. You have to keep in mind that Buddhism up until the last century or so had extremely little instances of engaging intellectually with Vedantic/Upanishadic teachings so they were never in a position to begin with to pass judgement on how close Buddha's teachings were to the Upanishads. All of the famed Buddhist teachers who attacked Hindu thought all limited themselves to trying to attack certain teachings of Nyaya, Samhkya, Vaisheshika etc, none of them really even demonstrate a basic understanding of Vedanta or the Upanishads. Nagarjuna doesn't mention Vedantic teachings or try to attack/refute the transcendent Upanishadic Atma in his works. One of the few Mahayana thinkers who actually mentions Vedanta is Bhaviveka but he doesn't even understand it. He makes the mistake of attributing Bhedābheda and realist positions to Advaita and then claiming that the inner contradictions resulting from this is proof that it's wrong when Advaita never accepted those views to begin with. The Tibetian Jonang teacher Dolpopa in his works actually cites the works of the most famous Mahayana Buddha teachers from Nagarjuna, Chandrakirti, Asanga, Vasubandhu down the line to argue that they all actually either implicitly or explicitly accepted a real and existing transcendent tathagatagarbha/Buddha-matrix Dolpopa calls (true) Atma. Many Mahayanana Sutras talk about similar stuff as well. There is a tendency among Yea Forums Buddhist posters to try to subsume all of later Mahayana/Vajrayana to a Madhyamika understanding and that claim that when Mahayana sutras and later schools talk about Tathagatagarbha/Dharmadhatu etc that its actually just upaya, metaphorical, a way of teaching sunyata etc; but this is a blatantly false claim motivated by either ignorance or partisanship which doesn't address the fact that many of these schools adhered to a more Yogachara interpretation (which as a school essentially regarded itself as superceding the limited and incomplete understanding of Madhyamika) and that there is at the same time a Buddhist tradition of interpreting Nagarjuna and Madhyamika (to say nothing of Buddha) as a spiritual absolutist who taught of an existing transcendent Absolute via negation.
Ayden Gutierrez
might be pointing at the same thing from different perspectives (to both of them, ultimate truth is truly inexpressible in any terms) but I prefer Buddhist practices and I'm not indian so Buddhism is much more accessible
also IMO madhyamaka and early yogachara like Nagarjuna and Vasubandhu (but not Asanga) are the most based out of all of Buddhism, other than the Pali Canon Buddha
Prajnaparamita sutras
heart sutra
diamond sutra
platform sutra
all great
Sebastian Johnson
****although, the notion of there being an ultimate ground/base/true reality to existence was rejected by Madhyamaka and only became introduced to Buddhism much later, so as far as an intellectual understanding is concerned, shunyata is much, much different than 'Atman = Brahman'
Benjamin Allen
>although, the notion of there being an ultimate ground/base/true reality to existence was rejected by Madhyamaka
That's just one interpretation of Nagarjuna and there are other intepretations of him which disagree. The Buddhist Dolpopa cites from Nagarjunas works to provide proof that he accepted a transcendent reality/Buddha-nature. The academic Chandrahar Sharma who has studied Nagarjunas works in Sanskrit and who wrote his dissertation and multiple books on Madhyamika points out that Nirvana was the transcendent reality to Nagarjuna and that Nagarjuna uses sunyata in two different ways in his writing (this may not be obvious if you've only read a translation of his works though). According to him when Nagarjuna uses sunyata to describe phenomenal existence he is describing it as being empty of ultimate existence/reality but when he applies sunyata to Nirvana he is describing it being devoid of plurality, thought-constructions, suffering etc. Nagarjuna himself describes Nirvana with the Sanskrit word 'tattva' (meaning 'existing') in his works.
>only became introduced to Buddhism much later
That's incorrect, it was being talked about in early Yogachara which arose only a few hundred years after Nagarjuna. There are also various Mahayana sutras such as the Tathagatagarbha class sutras talking about these ideas the earliest of which some academics date to around the 1st-2nd centuries right around the time of Nagarjuna.
Wyatt Diaz
>Chandrahar Sharma
Weird how you keep forgetting to mention that this wonderful academic of yours is an Advaitin.
Zachary Robinson
He is not an Advaitin, the focus of his books and writings are equally as on Madhyamika and other Buddhist thought as they are on Advaita, and there are coincidentally renowned Buddhist philosophers/thinkers who happen to agree with him. Unlike you he has actually read Nagarjuna in Sanskrit. If you dont have a real argument then fuck off
Blake Barnes
>coincidentally renowned Buddhist philosophers/thinkers who happen to agree with him
[who?]
Hudson Davis
Hellenism.
Robert Smith
Dolpopa
Thomas Long
I prefer ant man.
Luis Wood
Vedic beliefs just weren't really around in the areas Buddhism originated at the time.
Not saying Advaita and Buddhism don't share many beliefs but Buddhism probably got most of its beliefs via Jainism.
Kayden Perez
Buddhism. Life is fleating as the great Rinpoches say.
Asher Wright
Those people essentially misinterpret it as self help type nonsense.
Grayson Nguyen
Correct and the only path to Nirvana is through death.
Robert Mitchell
buddhist statues ARE hellenism
Henry Gutierrez
>he thinks there is something that dies
kek
if you subscribe to either system then you should be able to see that both are two ends of the same pole.
they both have a problem with individual personhood/consciousness appearing in the world; advaita seeks to disperse it into ALL, stretching it out infinitely thin everywhere. buddhism seeks to turn it so deep into itself until it disappears once again into the ALL.
nirvana is unchanging
atman is unchanging
both paths lead to the same unchanging transcendent end.
unfortunately their sublime transcendent end is actually HELL
Brandon Collins
Anekantattva
Thomas Gutierrez
That's why: Hellenism
Levi Ward
>a indescribable spiritual unconditioned and unborn Absolute which is the ultimate substratum of everything
But if that's all that is real how can you have identity? Isn't it a repeat of Schellings's night in which all cows are black? Everything is a drops of the same thing in an ocean of sameness that dissolves all difference and identity?
>To consider any specific fact as it is in the Absolute, consists here in nothing else than saying about it that, while it is now doubtless spoken of as something specific, yet in the Absolute, in the abstract identity A = A, there is no such thing at all, for everything is there all one. To pit this single assertion, that “in the Absolute all is one”, against the organised whole of determinate and complete knowledge, or of knowledge which at least aims at and demands complete development – to give out its Absolute as the night in which, as we say, all cows are black – that is the very naïveté of emptiness of knowledge.
William Powell
>Which is correct Atman or Anatman?
what went wrong with Atman or Anatman that makes illusion arise?
Josiah Wilson
What is the Buddhist theory of just war?
Gavin Murphy
similar to incorporating banging hookers into arahat's conduct
Carson Robinson
>hate
you can war without hate
Isaiah King
People in this thread seem knowledgeable: Can someone explain the basic idea of reincarnation, or point me to an explanation that is sufficiently simple?
According to Guenon and Coomaraswamy, it seems I've fallen for the western meme version, but I don't understand their explanations
Zachary Miller
Anyone got any good books on this subject? Preferably not written by some western leftists trying to show how evil and non-Buddhist they were every time Buddhists went to war.
I've read Nagarjuna but he doesn't really delve into it. There must have been a lot of monks that served as political advisers for kings/princes and also wrote throughout history.
Benjamin Gutierrez
If you're asking this you're still too much of a dualist.
Robert Wright
I'm a noob at this stuff still but afaik the basic idea behind reincarnation, rebirth, etc. is the same as in the phrase "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it". Enlightenedfags correct me if I'm wrong.
Parker Anderson
in the thread you made about that topic someone answered your question
Isaiah Bailey
there's zen at war
Zachary Bell
You've read it?
>"Unlike the other researchers, Victoria writes in a vacuum. He extracts the words and deeds of Japanese Buddhist leaders from their cultural and temporal context, and judges them from a present-day, progressive, Western point of view."
Is it true?
Easton Walker
probably, but the words are the words
>The sword is generally associated with killing, and most of us wonder how it can come into connection with Zen, which is a school of Buddhism teaching the gospel of love and mercy. The fact is that the art of swordsmanship distinguishes between the sword that kills and the sword that gives life. The one that is used by a technician cannot go any further than killing, for he never appeals to the sword unless he intends to kill. The case is altogether different with the one who is compelled to lift the sword. For it is really not he but the sword itself that does the killing. He had no desire to do harm to anybody, but the enemy appears and makes himself a victim. It is as though the sword performs automatically its function of justice, which is the function of mercy... When the sword is expected to play this sort of role in human life, it is no more a weapon of self-defense or an instrument of killing, and the swordsman turns into an artist of the first grade, engaged in producing a work of genuine originality.
sounds pretty based tbf
John Flores
Please explain the implications of Dolpopa's shentong vs rangtong for laymen, preferably in a well-formatted way.
Henry Bailey
Alright that is pretty based
Evan Gonzalez
to be clear that's not from this book , it's from this book quoting a book D. T. Suzuki co-authored with others called The Essence of Bushido (Bushido no Shinzui), which i am not sure if it exist in english
Oliver Adams
Nothing went wrong with it. The Upanishads state that Maya is a power of the Lord, that the Lord, who is at the same time the inner Self of all beings, through His power of Maya projects all of the universe etc within the infinity of Himself. The Upanishads make it clear that the Atma is not tainted or affected by this though. The extent of the individual mind and intellect which think "I am an embodied individual experiencing suffering" are part of the ultimately unreal cosmic illusion stemming from Maya. The inner pure consiousness all the while remains unaffected and abounding in its own bliss, completely untouched by any suffering of the intellect/mind but this appears hidden from the intellect due to Maya and the ignorance associated with it. Part of Advaitic teachings are teaching one to recognize this inner pure consiousness inside oneself and realizing that Its subtly hidden within each consious moment, or that each consious moment take place within It. Advaita considers it to be not very important/productive to analyze why the Lord utilizes His power of Maya to cause the universe, they just take the Upanishads at their words; some later Vedantic/Tantric schools and later Advaita-based sects posit that it stems from an urge to experience beauty or to enjoy Himself. Buddhism largely doesn't have an explanation for why illusion arises/exists, some groups such as Theravada take dependent-origination as being responsible for the existence of samsara but this is rejected by Mahayana and it doesn't explain anyway what causes dependent origination, the idea of the cause of samsara/universe being a beginningless series of cause and effect (which is what the Theravadin interpretation of dependent origination essentially is) was attacked as illogical by both Vedantic and Mahayana thinkers.
Ayden King
A few controversial Theravada figures have managed to understand Dependent Arising as it was actually originally taught. Read Ñānavīra Thera's book "Clearing the Path" to understand more. Dependent Arising was originally taught as phenomenological and unfortunately this got misunderstood in Theravada commentarial tradition as what you said: a literal beginningless series of cause and effect.
One simple thing that shows the contradiction is that much of the Theravada views the first links of dependent arising (ignorance, preparations/sankharas) as rooted only in the past, birth and death as in the future, and the rest of the links as in the present. This does not line up with what the Buddha said, which was that even the stream-winner understands and sees dependent arising in its entirety upon the moment of stream-entry. How would a stream-winner, who does not necessarily have any insight into past lives, and certainly no insight into future lives, see and understand all the links of dependent arising in the present?
Blake Gray
>Ñānavīra Thera
Based.
Highly recommend the videoseries done by Hillside Hermitage on his books(and all their other videos too). They give really good teachings and they don't seem to be another one of those western Buddhists that basically just became Buddhists because they have testosterone deficiencies which is a joyous change of pace. Really puts it in perspective when you listen to other western Buddhists that give teachings such as working out is bad karma and if you get a termite infestation in your house you should just move.
Here is the playlist on "Clearing the Path".
>youtube.com
Julian Bell
Nyanamoli Thero is one of the greatest living Theravada monks, he understands Buddhism like few others do, and I suppose we can attribute that to the fact that he's essentially a disciple of Ñānavīra.
The only other modern monk of the same calibre I would say is Ñānananda Bhikkhu, but he's dead now, unfortunately.
Jeremiah Bell
>Buddhists that basically just became Buddhists because they have testosterone deficiencies
Lmao
Brayden Perry
also Bhikkhu Anālayo is top notch as well for early Buddhism
every Buddhist should read (in addition to the Pali suttas)
Ñānavīra
Nyanamoli
Ñānananda
Anālayo
Ajahn Chah
Nāgārjuna
Āryadeva
Vasubandhu
Brayden Gonzalez
I'll check them out. Thanks.
Ryan Baker
>bro tribal tattoo
based
Cameron Jones
pathpress.wordpress.com
good essay by Nyanamoli
Kevin Reed
chad monk
Josiah Smith
Why are cats so pure but sadistic and evil, while dogs are good and naive but also filthy fucking perverts?
Brayden King
Dogs are created by man. Cats much less so.