Starting with when I reached trance in meditation, all my beliefs dropped away with time and now I am close to not believing anything. But I feel like this isn't really what Hinduism teaches. I feel like I've discovered a new way of spirituality that takes the having no beliefs to the ultimate conclusion. Actually not believing anything. What do you think about that? Any advice, further insight, knowledge on the subject?
As long as you don’t confuse non attachment with apathy or nihilism you should be in for a fun ride just don’t go off trying to ruin others cause you don’t believe then to be true
I don't "believe" in anything but I have some ideas found in different religions and I hold on to them. For example I think spirit is fire, like ethereal fire. That's from gnosticism. I think Buddha actually achieved nirvana, but I don't believe in Buddhism. So, I don't really, "not believe" in everything, but specific things I think are indeed true. But yes I keep my ideas as only ideas and don't impose them on others. What do you mean with apathy and nihilism? Do you think I am that?
Sounds to me like you have beliefs you just don’t hold dogmas
I mean then by there definition and I have no clue idk you and never will what’s in you is on you
You believe that you do not believe in anything.
>I feel like I've discovered a new way of spirituality that takes the having no beliefs to the ultimate conclusion.
No you didn't, that's just how it's always worked. Depending on what you choose to do in the aftermath, the end result will ALWAYS resemble old-school Buddhism, chaos magic, or nihilism, which are basically just different strategies/flavors of integrating the same transformation. It's not what "Hinduism" teaches because Vedāntins stop short of embracing the obvious due to cold feet about admitting "muh śrutis" are just more ideas like any others.
Tell me more about Buddhism. What is the essence of this old school Buddhism, and what do you think about Mahayana?
By "old-school Buddhism", I mean what seem to be the personal expressed observations of the Buddha. For a decent introduction to that you could easily get through in one sitting, I recommend Chapter 16 of Carr/Mahalingams' "Companion Encyclopedia of Asian Philosophy". It's available on PDFdrive (dot) to. A Yandex search for "companion encyclopedia of asian philosophy pdf" should readily turn it up.
Mahāyāna is a pretty broad category. I would say that a lot of it has amounted to a theistic degradation of the original ideas, but on the other hand, I don't see that Nāgārjuna was all that much less insightful than the Buddha himself. I have to admit I know next to nothing about the East Asian development of Mahāyāna, though.
Hinduiosm teaches a lot of things, many of them contradict.
Sounds like you are going through a "neti neti" process.
https://hridaya-yoga.com/blog/what-is-neti-neti/
>the end result will ALWAYS resemble old-school Buddhism
>Adi Shankara laughs
>Madhvacarya laughs
>ALL Vedantins laugh
>Hinduiosm teaches a lot of things
I am aware of this. I put "Hinduism" in quotes for that reason, in response to OP's "what Hinduism teaches", which cannot really be referring to anything at all in particular. However: when people (in the West at least) say "Hinduism" and in that sort of vague context, they are almost always (wittingly or not) referring to something resembling Vedānta. I am also familiar with "neti neti", but thanks for the link, I guess.
And that's fine, nothing wrong with Vedāntins laughing. As I see it, if one *must* pick a single way of viewing things out of the Indian milieu (which is not required and seems rather obviously counterproductive), then the Buddhists handily won that argument once and for all on the merits centuries before Śaṅkara was born. Either way, there's nothing left to hash out there that hasn't been said ad nauseum, and seeing no need to limit my cherry-picking to a single paradigm, I'll continue to siphon what insights I please from Vedānta as freely as I do from Buddhism — and the Vedāntins did, as you've implied, have much to say worth hearing as well. I can easily acknowledge and enjoy that while still standing by my criticism in the last sentence
, which I would say lies at the root of most of Vedānta's blind spots.
>when people (in the West at least) say "Hinduism"
Why indulge stupidity? When people say something wrong, correct them.
>the Buddhists handily won
If that's what you want to believe. It's wrong, but like you said - many people think wrong things.
And like I said, you should be corrected. Whether you listen is up to you.
You say you are familiar with neti neti, and yet you had no idea that it is what you are doing.
Unless you arent OP, in which case the learning wasnt for you. And you part was being laughed at for thinking all the different traditions and processes in Hinduism end up as "some form of Buddhism".
Silliest "Western take" on things I've seen in a while.
Not sure where you got the idea that I'm OP from, given that I was responding to his post, but to spell it out: I am not OP. I also wasn't referring to "all the different traditions and processes in Hinduism" as being what ends up as resembling Buddhism/chaos magic/nihilism, either, and it's hard for me to see how you would have arrived at that misunderstanding from reading my post, so I'm not really sure where to start on clarifying it. Maybe we should just leave it there?
>Not sure where you got the idea that I'm OP from
I responded to two people. One was OP informing them what they were doing. You responded to that like I was talking to you.
Do you need more help understanding?
> I also wasn't referring to "all the different traditions and processes in Hinduism" as being what ends up as resembling Buddhism
No, you widened it up much more to literally every process and tradition.
>Depending on what you choose to do in the aftermath, the end result will ALWAYS resemble old-school Buddhism
> Buddhism/chaos magic/nihilism
That you equate all of these is laughable. Especially since any attempt to say Buddhism and nihilism are similar gets attacked vociferously in any Buddhism general on here.
>it's hard for me
Then perhaps skip to the part where I proceed as if you were not OP.
>in which case the learning wasnt for you. And your part was being laughed at for thinking all the different traditions and processes in Hinduism end up as "some form of Buddhism".
Why bring it up? Are you the same anon? We can talk about Gnosticism, but it will be obvious to everyone you have given up defending your notions of Hinduism and Buddhism.
I am op, just trying to get new thoughts about it and in relation to the eastern traditions.
Gnosticism is very similar to Vedanta, though you would have to do a lot of forcing to get it to fit Advaita more than say Shuddhadvaita.
The main difference is that in Vedanta, there is no opposing force to the Supreme.
Your understanding of Vedanta, Hinduism, and spiritual paths as a whole is spurious and completely covered by your own religion.
You were wrong, and now you want to leave because you are upset that you were shown wrong.
You didn't show me to be "wrong", you just misunderstood what I said and then disagreed with your own misunderstanding, without even providing a refutation of that misunderstanding. Also, I don't have a religion, and there is nothing in any of my posts that you could possibly take to have implied that is the case. Sorry you're butthurt that you feel I've insulted *your* religion, but we can't even have the argument about that you want to have if you remain unwilling to make good-faith efforts to understand any of my posts. Which you are obviously either unwilling or unable to do. In b4 your next round of "nuh uh, here's I think you meant, and it's totally gay". This is the last post of yours I'm responding to if you can't demonstrate some capacity for meaningful and temperate interaction. The fact that don't even seem to you realize you've failed to do that up to this point doesn't give me much hope. Otherwise, I'm still remaining in the thread.
I thought you were leaving. Another falsehood.
>I don't have a religion
Okay, "everything just becomes buddhism".
>This is the last post of yours I'm responding to
Again?
You dont know anything about Vedanta if you think it becomes Buddhism, and you are wrong about the history of Vedanta defeating and pushing out Buddhism.
You dont know what you are talking about, and HOPEFULLY this time you arent lying and you wont reply with more upset blathering.
Right. Let's leave it there anyway, then. You seem needlessly antagonistic in a stereotypically EerieWeb-ish way, and from sound of things, you carry a dogmatic axe to grind on top of it. If you've seen one person like that, you've seen them all.
What do you think about Gnosticism?
Is samadhi trance necessary for nirvana?
I can't say for sure.
I believe in dry Insight, just using the tools provided by the suttas, in a way a guided philosophy. They say that the Jhanas are the easiest and most pleasurable path, encouraged by the Buddha himself, but try meditating for 30 minutes and you'll see that it's not so easy, at least outside the Sangha.
I confess that I don't even meditate that much, but I don't know how to explain my progress without meditation training if not for Dry Insight.
Hmm. Okay interesting. Thanks.