I can't take Guenon seriously anymore since reading Schuons comprehensive critique of him

>Allah
Worshippers of the desert demon need not reply

Why are Catholics so absent in the Traditionalist movement?

Apparently Guenon influenced Wendell Berry? I find that fascinating.

Jean Borella, Wolfgang Smith and Rama Coomaraswamy are all pretty notable. I would say that Catholicism is the most common religion of Traditionalist School members after Islam.

Jean Borella. Wolfgang Smith is his student and has written good stuff as well.

Attached: 1626418215307.jpg (266x400, 14.22K)

Guenon: opium addicted hack theosophist
Schuon: sentimental child molester
Evola: cringe tough guy larper

That said, I think Evola and Schuon's critiques of Guenon are good but the entire movement should be seen for what it is: syncretic LARP born out of 1910 antiquarian theosophy.

None of them are smart. Borella has the dumbest critique of Guenon which isn't really a critique at all but rather Borella getting on his knees and begging Guenon to become a Catholic instead of a Muslim. It's pathetic. Wolfgang Smith is proof that you can make quantum theory mean anything. A hack """Catholic""" who wears a Hindu Om ring because he loves Guenon more than Jesus.

> d but the entire movement should be seen for what it is: syncretic LARP born out of 1910 antiquarian theosophy.
Guenon retroactively refuted both theosophy and syncretism while himself remaining the most important thinker of the 20th century

PBUH

Attached: 28AABCD7-B65A-481E-ABAF-B8765F624B42.jpg (680x760, 52.22K)

Keep telling yourself that. You need to be 18 to post on this site.

> A hack """Catholic""" who wears a Hindu Om ring because he loves Guenon more than Jesus.
I doubt he loves Guenon more than Jesus (I do though), it sounds like you are just seething over little inconsequential things like a distraught female on her period

> Keep telling yourself that.
I will continue saying it because its true, Dugin is right when he says Guenon is the smartest and most correct person of the century.
>You need to be 18 to post on this site.
The way you act hysterical about Guenon and are constantly seething makes me think In older than you and that you are emotionally immature, probably due to your young age.

it was interesting to see how much traditionalists disagree with eachother and criticize eachother, i used to assume they were all saying the same things. the fact that guenon misunderstood ibn arabi is interesting and corbin and massignon not agreeing with the traditionalists as well.

rama coomaraswamy is good

>this is the 10th time you made this thread
Guenonfags are the worst NPCs

different kinds of shit, still shit

because they don't need it, the "traditionalist" is many things but not a tradition per see, not even an actual tarditionalist movement, it's fixation on sincretism is increidble psoitivist and really a precursor of postmodernity

Is it just me, or does anyone else think this frog looks like Adam Driver?

Attached: 1650556436563.jpg (4098x2702, 1.46M)

he's not, weird irrelevant sedevacantist that is probably just a Buddhist like his father and Guenon

Guenon-fans are the opposite of NPCs, they have an intuitive sense of spiritual realities and have woken up from the brianwashing of modernity like scientism, worship of mammon etc

just you

you haven't read him pseud

> just a Buddhist like his father and Guenon
Advaita isn’t Buddhism you retard, Advaita emphasizes that we have an eternal, immutable blissful Soul or Self that is at the same time the independently-existing transcendent Absolute underlying everything, 90% of Buddhism denies and (unsuccessfully) attacks both of these pillars of Advaita.

Advaita is inconsistent Buddhism because it was made by a retard. Buddhism is still dumb, but at least it's internally consistent.

> Advaita is inconsistent
No, it’s not inconsistent whatsoever. You don’t even have any examples of this

>Buddhism because it was made by a retard. Buddhism is still dumb, but at least it's internally consistent.
No it’s not, there are plenty of inconsistent things like the normative/orthodox Buddhist reading of the Pali Canon whereby we are told all the skandhas (aggregates) comprising our mind, awareness etc are permanently extinguished in Parinirvana but that this someone magically isn’t an annihilation of oneself or of one’s being, despite most Buddhists not admitting anything about us that persists in Parnirvana.

*somehow magically

>sincretism is increidble psoitivist

Attached: clapclap.gif (498x339, 277.38K)

Face blindness is a sign of autism

>No, it’s not inconsistent whatsoever.
not that user, but i can give a couple examples, brahma is being and non being at teh sam etime, that break the law of non contradiction
maya has no reason to exist
brahma is everything but at the same time is not maya, maya is somethign separated from brahma but for some reason this is not dualistic, even when maya must be a different type of substance if it's not part of brahma

>this someone magically isn’t an annihilation of oneself or of one’s being,
is not, because the self don't exist t o begin with, you can annihilate somehting that doesn't exist

>Buddhism denies and (unsuccessfully) attacks both of these pillars of Advaita.
on the contrary buddha himself made the most powerful critic to advaita, that is, he asked for a proof of the existence of the self, to this day no vedanta could provide a true proof that didn't rely on dogmatism or a petitio principii fallacy

>me think In older than you and that you are emotionally immature, probably due to your young age.
how old are you?

when guenonfag tried to explain this he admitted it "just has" the nature it has and cant be explained any further
>No, Brahman has no wants, it just has a nature that exists in a certain way, just like Buddhists cant explain why samsara or sunyata exists in the way that they do
but this is wrong because buddhists don't claim positive qualities for either samsara or sunyata, they only claim that what is apparent is samsara and the goal is liberation from it by direct realization, sunyata

advaita does the exact same thing because its a copy of the MMK of nagarjuna through gaudapada, but it says that direct realization reveals the Self, which is just sunyata turned into an apparent metaphysical essence. the whole point of the buddhist view was that no appearances or essences can explain samsara which is why you need to transcend them through realization.

advaita also tries to say this philosophy was already in the upanishads. something most hindus don't agree with and other vedantists like bhaskara and ramanuja rejected, calling shankara a buddhist trying to pass off buddhism as vedanta.

>Advaita emphasizes that we have an eternal, immutable blissful Soul or Self that is at the same time the independently-existing transcendent Absolute underlying everything
buddhism also emphasize this, they just do it without the need to rely on a artificial soul

When all the impure features of the wind-mind, the stains that conceal the expanse of ultimate reality, are removed, this buddhafield spontaneously manifests as the self-experience of primordial wisdom.

~ Kangyur Rinpoche

Bodhicitta, the pure and accomplished mind, cannot be established in any way as this or that, and yet, like space itself, it is the ground of all things. It has an unceasing creative power, which is like the reflecting surface of a stainless mirror.ts display consists of phenomena which arise in their various forms but are all unreal, in the manner of the eight examples of illusion.

~ Longchenpa,
*Treasury of the Dharmahatu*

What, O Kashyapa, is the remedy that leads beyond the world? It is sustained and thorough searching for the mind. The mind *in itself* O Kashyapa is not something that can be analyzed; it is not something that can be shown.It is not something that appears and it is not something that can be perceived. It has no dwelling place. O Kashyapa, the Buddhas have not seen it, they do not see it, & never shall. O Kashyapa, when mind is searched for, it is not discovered. Not discovered, it is not observed.And what is not observed has no past, no future and no present. What did not exist in the past , will not exist in the future and is not occurring now. It perfectly transcends the three times.

~ Ratnakuta Sutra

In ultimate reality, which is unborn and completely pure, unreal forms arise that seem like things that have an origin. However they be born, they are not other than this nature. Stay therefore in great bliss, free of effort.

~ Kunjed Gyalpo

In the end, it is beyond all expressions, such as: it is all and everything, it is not all, everything lies within it, or does not, and so on. It remains an individual experience of self-knowing awareness.

~ Mipham

Hello ESLanon, nothing you said is actually taught by Advaita, I see that you are still a liar who makes up random bs about things you don't like, and which has no connection to what they actually say.

>not that user, but i can give a couple examples, brahma is being and non being at teh sam etime, that break the law of non contradiction
Advaita doesn't teach that Brahman is being and non-being at the same time, they reject this as illogical. What Advaita ACTUALLY teaches is that Brahman is transcendental absolute being, which is both beyond and different from non-existence and relative being (i.e. falsity).

Advaita doesn't violate the law of non-contradiction, but Mahayana Buddhism however often does violate the LNC when they identify samsara and nirvana with each other despite them having mutually exclusive attributes (suffering vs freedom from suffering).

>maya has no reason to exist
It's Brahman's inherent nature to project maya, if Brahman's projecting of maya were motivated by some external force, cause or motivation, then Brahman would be influenced by other things and not totally independent and unconditioned. Because it's simply Brahman's nature to project maya effortlessly and spontaneously, Brahman remains completely unconditioned and independent by virtue of not being impacted by or dependent upon anything.

>brahma is everything but at the same time is not maya
Incorrect, Advaita teaches that Brahman is only everything that is real, maya is not real and hence Brahman (reality) and maya (falsity) are not identical

>maya is somethign separated from brahma but for some reason this is not dualistic
Advaita is not dualistic because dualism involves two equal realities or multiplicity/differentiation that is real or truly existent. In Advaita there are not multiple realities, and all multiplicity/differentiation is rejected as false and as having no real being. What is true must *by definition* be different from the false or truth/falsity loses all meaning, and you'll end up violating the LNC like Buddhism. When the body of the liberated man dies, his Atman remains as eternally liberated infinite non-dual bissful Atman without even any seeming association with maya anymore, the apparently existent but false duality that is temporary gives way to unending non-duality.

>is not, because the self don't exist t o begin with, you can annihilate somehting that doesn't exist
then it's a complete annihilation and extinction of our conscious life and experience with nothing remaining, which for all intents and purposes is identical with the materialist conception of death.

>You are still doing this "Maya is real but not real" "Jivas are real but not real" thing 5 years later
This place is cancer, it holds people in retarded patterns like this because all they care about is arguing

>on the contrary buddha himself made the most powerful critic to advaita, that is, he asked for a proof of the existence of the self, to this day no vedanta could provide a true proof that didn't rely on dogmatism or a petitio principii fallacy
Just because no proof is provided for something doesn't mean that it's been refuted user. If we accept this standard of yours.... THEN BUDDHISM IS SELF-REFUTING AND BUDDHA REFUTED HIMSELF, since Buddha makes claims about metaphysical matters without proving they are true (rebirth, nirvana, parinirvana, karma, heavenly realms, hells, different stages of attainment like stream-entrant etc). That's dishonest of you to apply a double-standard, and it makes you look foolish when you don't even realize what you are saying is an attack on Buddha.

If a Buddhist wanted to refute the Advaita position he would have to demonstrate some contradiction in it (which Buddhists themselves accept and refer to as the 'prasangika' method or consequentialist), but no Buddhist has ever done this.

>when guenonfag tried to explain this he admitted it "just has" the nature it has and cant be explained any further
Yes, because that's what's logically consistent with the Absolute being unconditioned and independent, when someone has an inane desire for rationalism and wants some mechanistic explanation that talks about the Absolute acting because of something else, that's when errors are introduced which means you aren't talking about something truly unconditioned. Advaita's answer logically and consistently allows their Absolute to remain totally unconditioned and independent.

>buddhists don't claim positive qualities for either samsara or sunyata, they only claim that what is apparent is samsara and the goal is liberation from it by direct realization, sunyata
Buddhists have no idea and cant explain why sunyata is as it does, i.e. be apparent to us as samsara, so what you are whining about with Advaita is just as true of Buddhism, Buddhists say "sunyata just is that way but I can't explain why"

>advaita does the exact same thing because its a copy of the MMK of nagarjuna through gaudapada
No it's not and that's a brainlet-tier claim, Nagarjuna is something totally different, i.e. an epistemological non-dualism that identifies the false (samsara) and the truth (sunyata) with each other, Advaita Vedanta is an ontological non-dualism that explicitly distinguishes the false (maya) and the true (Brahman) as being necessarily different. The pre-Buddhist Upanishads before Buddha already talk about ontological non-dualism and a transcendent Brahman, Advaita's positions come from here. Advaita's position just follows the normal common sense understanding of illusion which recognizes it to be distinct by definition from what is true (non-illusory), while Nagarjuna has a different, nonsensical and counter-intuitive approach that identifies falsity and truth.

>but it says that direct realization reveals the Self, which is just sunyata turned into an apparent metaphysical essence.
No, since the Self consists of luminously self-disclosing pure awareness and has absolute unconditioned immutable existence, while sunyata has no intrinsic sentience or consciousness to it like the Self does and is not 'absolute existence' and is not immutable, they are totally different things.

>the whole point of the buddhist view was that no appearances or essences can explain samsara which is why you need to transcend them through realization.
You don't have to explain the appearance of samsara in order to realize the Absolute as already identical with your own Self, and the Buddhists never refuted the Advaita positon anyway.

>advaita also tries to say this philosophy was already in the upanishads. something most hindus don't agree with and other vedantists like bhaskara and ramanuja rejected
Because their bhakti comes form the Pancharatra (Vaishnavite Tantras) despite it being absent from the Upanishads so they are trying to cover themselves

>It's Brahman's inherent nature to project maya
then is part of brahma, but then this happens

>maya is not real and hence Brahman (reality) and maya (falsity) are not identical

so brahma and maya are opposites again thus this leads us to the third part, which is

>dualism involves two equal realities
no, dualism involves two substances, that is two things that can be separated one from another and still exist, if maya is not part of brahma then is by definition a dualist system,

>then it's a complete annihilation and extinction of our conscious life and experience with nothing remaining
no, because our life and experiences don't need a trascendental self to exist, only if you follow advaita metaphysics can you arrive at such conclusion, but buddhism don't use advaita metaphysics, so it's not a problem

>uddha makes claims about metaphysical matters without proving they are true (rebirth, nirvana, parinirvana, karma, heavenly realms, hells, different stages of attainment like stream-entrant etc)
none of those are metaphysical claims, but empirical ones, they are accepted or refuted in practical terms, since all of those concepts are mental and not metaphysical

>If a Buddhist wanted to refute the Advaita position he would have to demonstrate some contradiction in it (which Buddhists themselves accept and refer to as the 'prasangika' method or consequentialist), but no Buddhist has ever done this.
thats not true i can think of 3 arguments buddhist did against shankara, and all of them originate in the same problem shankar ahave, that is, changing his critic of sahopalambha by first using the Sakara of Vijñanavada but then in the middle of the argument goes to notions of the Nirakara, that is he find contradictions because he's using two different schools
to this Taranatha just say that shankara commited a petitio principii fallacy, that is taing for granted the necessity of a self, which he can't do because that's the thing in doubt here, he did it on pourpose to make buddhism seems contardictory, gorampas posture or shankara was afarid of refuting a major school of buddhist philosophy like the Svatántrikas and used a minor school to sell himself as the debunker of buddhism, the gelug argument
in any case no advaita ever adressed any of this critics against shankara

>buddhism also emphasize this, they just do it without the need to rely on a artificial soul
They sometimes do, but the Buddhist position still makes less sense because they don't work out why Parinirvana isn't a compete annihilation/extinction of all our experience and all meaning since we are comprised of aggregates (sic) that are obliterated. And most of the quotes you cited contradict Madhyamaka and are more in line with a Shentong view (which agrees more with Advaita than anti-foundationalism)

>this buddhafield spontaneously manifests as the self-experience of primordial wisdom.
If something is spontaneously self-manifesting then it has independent existence and hence svabhava and the Madhyamaka claim of everything lacking svabhava is wrong

>Bodhicitta, the pure and accomplished mind, cannot be established in any way as this or that, and yet, like space itself, it is the ground of all things. .... phenomena which arise in their various forms but are all unreal
Recognizing the real Bodhicitta as intrinsically different from the unreal phenomena is ontological non-dualism (i.e. more like Advaita than Nagarjuna), recognizing that there even is such a thing as 'ground of all things' is disagreeing with the Madhyamaka premise that everything lacks svabhava

>The mind *in itself* O Kashyapa is not something that can be analyzed;
Here, the Madhyamaka claim that everything about us can be analyzed and broken down into its constituent parts is rejected (or refuted)
>it is not something that can be shown.It is not something that appears and it is not something that can be perceived. It has no dwelling place
If you agree with this, then why do you seethe and throw tantrums when Advaitins talk about a Self of consciousness that cannot be shown (because its what reveals what is shown) and does not appear (because appearances appear to it)?

>It remains an individual experience of self-knowing awareness.
If awareness is intrinsically self-knowing then there is no basis to regard it as lacking svabhava

>>You are still doing this "Maya is real but not real" "Jivas are real but not real" thing 5 years later
Wrong dumbass, Maya is falsity which is neither real being nor absolute nothingness. I love how people are so unable to refute Advaita that they are reduced to making up false artificial contradictions that they wrongly attribute to Advaita so that they can feel better about themselves. You rarely see a philosophy so strong that it induces its opponents to tell lies because they are seething so hard.

>since reading
is this grammatically corret, english speakers?

>>It's Brahman's inherent nature to project maya
>then is part of brahma, but then this happens
Brahman is partless, Brahman simply *is* his nature instead of his nature forming a part which is different from another part that isn't Brahman's nature.

>dualism involves two equal realities
>no, dualism involves two substances, that is two things that can be separated one from another and still exist, if maya is not part of brahma then is by definition a dualist system,
That doesn't make Advaita into a dualism, the opposite is true. Spinoza's defintion of substance is 'substance is something that needs nothing else in order to exist or be conceived. maya does not even have existence to begin with, so any understanding of 'substances' as 'that which actually exists' means maya isn't a substance, but even if we go off Spinoza's definition then maya isn't a substance anyways since maya requires Brahman to exist so maya can be falsity. Without Brahman being there projecting it then there would be no maya *as* falsity, so according to the standard definitions of substance maya is not a substances and hence there is not a dualism of two substances.

>>then it's a complete annihilation and extinction of our conscious life and experience with nothing remaining
>no, because our life and experiences don't need a trascendental self to exist, only if you follow advaita metaphysics can you arrive at such conclusion, but buddhism don't use advaita metaphysics, so it's not a problem
that's ignoring the central point of that sentence, what most Buddhists are talking about IS AN ANNIHILATION, but instead of being an annihilation of an Atman its just an annihilation of our conscious experience, awareness, life etc (which according to them doesn't continue on in parinirvana but just is wiped out)

>>uddha makes claims about metaphysical matters without proving they are true (rebirth, nirvana, parinirvana, karma, heavenly realms, hells, different stages of attainment like stream-entrant etc)
>none of those are metaphysical claims, but empirical ones, they are accepted or refuted in practical terms, since all of those concepts are mental and not metaphysical
Yes they are metaphysical claims you confused clown! Now you are just twisting yourself into pretzels and repeating nonsense when you realize that your own arguments undermine your own position.

Karma as taught in the PC is a metaphysical claim beyond empirical verification regarding our actions having a special effect that magically impacts our future births (which we cannot empirically verify), it's metaphysical because it's going beyond the level of the physical that we can interact with and verify.

The same is true of rebirth (we cant verify it or interact with it physically when it allegedly occurs but its an invisible and supernatural process)

The same is true of Nirvana (we can't physically interact with someone else's Nirvana or prove it in any way)

The same is true of Parinirvana (we can't measure, detect or physically interact with Parinirvana or prove it in any way)

We cannot verify or empirically detect or measure the claim that when someone has reached the "twice-returner" stage that they will actually only have two births left, it's a metaphysical claim going beyond the physical world we can interact with.

etc etc, these are all metaphysical claims offering with proof, so according to your own standards Buddha refutes himself! Moreover according to Madyamakins themselves there is no single argument that proves sunyata but all the arguments just try to refute individual examples of svabhava without ever proving sunyata, so by your own standard Mahyamaka/Nagarjuna is self-refuting too, in addition to the Buddha!

>thats not true i can think of 3 arguments buddhist did against shankara, and all of them originate in the same problem shankar ahave, that is, changing his critic of sahopalambha by first using the Sakara of Vijñanavada but then in the middle of the argument goes to notions of the Nirakara, that is he find contradictions because he's using two different schools
He doesn't ever do this that's another one of your many bald-faced lies, if you want to claim otherwise then provide the exact page of the work in which Shankara does and in which sentence of which passage
>to this Taranatha just say that shankara commited a petitio principii fallacy, that is taing for granted the necessity of a self, which he can't do because that's the thing in doubt here, he did it on pourpose to make buddhism seems contardictory,
Taranatha doesn't present any arguments refuting Advaita, Taranatha himself holds a Shentong position that is closer to Advaita, and in his history of Buddhism Taranatha records that Shankara defeated Buddhists and converted the monks at their monasteries through this. None of Shankara's arguments against the Buddhists involve presupposing an Upanishadic Atman in order to function, instead they just refute the Buddhist positions simply by using logic and an examination of empirical experience.
>gorampas posture or shankara was afarid of refuting a major school of buddhist philosophy like the Svatántrikas and used a minor school to sell himself as the debunker of buddhism, the gelug argument
This isn't grammatically correct and makes no sense, if want to make a point you should rephrase it in English and cite a specific argument from a specific text
>in any case no advaita ever adressed any of this critics against shankara
I have never heard of any of these and since you have exposed yourself as liar multiple times before I am inclined to think you made them up whole-cloth, do you have examples of specific texts that mention Shankara or Advaita by name, along with the specific passage in that text? Mipham totally gets Advaita wrong and wrongly attributes sahopalamba-niyama to Advaita and his arguments totally fail because of this, I have never heard of any other Tibetans writing anything else about it.

*these are all metaphysical claims offering WITHOUT proof,

>maya does not even have existence to begin with
but that's the problem, if maya don' t exist then what is the world of phenomena?

>maya requires Brahman to exist
exactly, then maya is part of brahma

>its just an annihilation of our conscious experience, awareness, life etc
not really, awareness, consciousnes, matter and so on and so on are not detsroyed in paranirvana, they are detsroyed and re created all the time, that's how time and otion workds, what cease toe xist are the nods that permit those things to exist in a vicious circle

>and in his history of Buddhism Taranatha records that Shankara defeated Buddhists and converted the monks at their monasteries through this
Taranatha speaking on the unsurpassable Shankaracharya (pbuh):

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)

Attached: 1650383607788.jpg (499x512, 30.25K)

then your problem is not with the buddha but with nagarjuna

>but that's the problem, if maya don' t exist then what is the world of phenomena?
This has already been answered a million times! Have you no attention-span like a lab-rat with its memory-genes knocked out? The world of phenomena is FALSITY, which by definition isn't the same thing as truth. Hence, there is no problem.

>>maya requires Brahman to exist
>exactly, then maya is part of brahma
Incorrect, just because B requires A for there to be a B appearing doesn't making B into a part of A, that's a completely unsubstantiated and illogical leap of "reasoning", and we have numerous examples in our empirical experience which contradict this. In order for that to even put up a pretense of being a valid argument, you would first have to prove as true the axiom that "whenever something is dependent on something else, then it becomes a part of what it is dependent on", but you never proved this and its impossible to prove this because its refuted by countless examples in our empirical experience and it violates the LNC: An appearance generated by a man's reflection in a pond requires the presence of that man, but the appearance in the pond is not a part of that living breathing man, it's something else totally and entirely, and which has mutually exclusive characteristics with the man (one is living and sentient and the other is not living and not sentient), you cannot even identify them without violating the law of non-contradiction.

>not really, awareness, consciousnes, matter and so on and so on are not detsroyed in paranirvana, they are detsroyed and re created all the time, that's how time and otion workds
Then your liberation is a fake liberation and you'll be reborn over and over and there is no permanent escape from samsara and suffering

>then your problem is not with the buddha but with nagarjuna
Well, I'm not oblivious and I know that 90% of the time I'm not arguing with "Pali Canon purists" but rather the majority of online Buddhists on Yea Forums have the fantasy that Buddha actually taught sunyata and Madhyamaka, despite the normative understanding of Nagarjuna as explicated by Chandrakirti and Buddhapalita (skepticism, lack of views, tetralemma) being identified as heretical and not Buddha's teaching in the Samaññaphala Sutta of the Digha Nikaya. So I'm bringing forth reasons that are worth mentioning to the majority of Buddhist posters here and not the minority-view.

And if Buddha's actual teachings are that the Absolute is an ineffable non-discursive self-knowing or self-disclosing Awareness that lies within us then he is basically an Advaitin and he is just repeating the view of the Upanishads which predate him and I have very little to quibble with him about at that point.

Everyone who can’t make sense of the idea of anatman,
Regardless of their background, Hindu, materialist, Christian, whatever, makes the same mistake
right from the start:

“This is a thing. How can it be ‘not’ a thing?”
... in this case, “here is atma. How can it not be atma?”

Naturally, if you start with a premise on which to argue a theory, you can’t then refute that premise. That’s logical.
But, what if the premise is faulty? That’s where the difficulty arises.

Buddhism doesn’t say that a self doesn’t exist.
Buddhism says that nothing exists which is a self.
This sounds like two different ways of saying the same thing, but it’s not. There is a huge, but very subtle difference.

The experience of a self certainly occurs, just as objects in dreams occur. If you are saying that experience is Brahma imagining the universe or something like that,
or that Brahma is dreaming and we are all part of that dream or whatever, then you are arguing that this ‘self’ that is experienced still has some kind of self-essential reality to it.

This is no different than saying if you dream of a tiger, the tiger exists. But the tiger doesn’t exist. Only the experience of the Tiger occurs. Occur and exist are different.
If the tiger exists, then Buddha is wrong, and it makes sense to develop attachment in some way (attraction, repulsion, indifference) to that tiger.
If the tiger only occurs, as an illusion, as something temporarily arising from component causes, then Buddha is correct: there is no reason to indulge in attachment to it.
If one argues that basically there is only god, and everything is a divine extension of that god, one is still arguing that every”thing” has true existence itself.

Otherwise, the question merely comes down to asking whether the experience of a self is the result of Brahma dreaming (the Brahmanist view) or the result of infinite interactions of events happening due to ignorance (the Buddhist view), the only difference being that the Brahmanist asserts that Brahma truly exists, therefore whatever Brahma dreams truly exists.

So, first you have to prove that Brahma exists. And that is purely a matter of faith. It’s an opinion.
Ironically, the argument for belief in any god is generally based on the belief in a truly existent self:
“I’m here. What am I? Where did I come from?”
The really interesting thing about that is, once you have determined through analytical meditation (vipassana) that nothing arises that can truly be identified as an essential “self”, the very need for a creator of that self dissolves. In other words, god exists in order to support the theory that individual people and things truly exist. Brahma isn’t imagining humans, humans are imagining Brahma.

And what Buddha suggests is that you first have to drop that “I am here” premise. That’s the whole point.

>The world of phenomena is FALSITY, which by definition isn't the same thing as truth. Hence, there is no problem.
but then it exist as something false

>Incorrect, just because B requires A for there to be a B appearing doesn't making B into a part of A
then maya exist outside of brahman making it a different substance, thus falling into dualism

>Then your liberation is a fake liberation and you'll be reborn over and over
how so? the conditions of rebirth no longer exist