> the One exists and acts and is real> doesn’t violate shunyata because unity itself doesn’t have svabhava> Buddha’s rwI will enjoy laughing with Krishna at Buddha burning in hell :)
>>42881610Very ignorant you are, lol.
>>42881707Don’t use Yoda to fortify your accusations
>>42881610Don't many Vaishnavas view Buddha as the most recent dashavatara?
>>42883158Some do, some see him as a divine trickster playing a trick on Buddhists
>>42881610So the idea that the One is sunyata because it empty of self-nature is also Buddhist. I don't know what rw means. But you start by saying "the One acts and is real." I think you actually don't mean Krishna, but rather Brahman. Brahman is the One (Unity) and we all Act in lila. That being said I would dispute that Brahman "acts." It's kind of like Nero spectating the gladiator arena. Afaik Buddhists don't deny that Brahman (the One) exists they just say he is transient or contingent with a set lifespan of some trillions of years. If I were you I'd stop disputing and just look into whether Krishna is really what you mean by the One.
>>42881610>Driven by aversion.Buddha lives rent free on your head.
>>42883758The One is the One who acts by definition >>42883805It’s not aversion, it’s enjoyment, wdym? Nagarjuna is a great unicity philosopher, I just don’t think the original Buddha liked the idea of surrendering to the One who acts, because he called that act irrelevant to liberation, even though it’s his source
>>42883758>I think you actually don't mean Krishna, but rather Brahman.Krishna is the source of Brahman. It is His aura.>whether Krishna is really what you mean by the One.Yep.
>>42883632I'm aware of that belief, but then why would he "burn in hell"?
>>42883758You are confusing "Brahman" with "Brahma". Brahman is the ineffable divinity beyond form, Brahma is the cosmic architect.
>>42881610Why would Lord Krishna, the avatar of Lord Vishnu, laugh at anyone's suffering? Are you sure you're not just unhealthily fixated on "being right"?
>>42885736> Are you sure you're not just unhealthily fixated on "being right"?Yeah probably, but still. Compassion belongs before and within judgment. Once judgment is fully disclosed as just, the emphasis shifts from mourning the condemned to consenting to divine justice.>>42885575Well if it’s actually a Vishnu op then probably not, but presuming he’s just a guy who didn’t surrender, it’s because he didn’t surrender and explicitly rejected God with his doctrine.
>>42885736>Why would Lord Krishna, the avatar of Lord Vishnu, laugh at anyone's suffering?Because Krishna enjoys everything. Likely because he sees anyone taking it seriously enough to suffer as a joke.>>42885763>it’s because he didn’t surrender and explicitly rejected GodNot a reason to be sent to hellish realms. Krishna is not vindictive like the Christian conception. There are people in heaven who reject Vishnu as well.
>>42885804Heaven is not just a place you get admitted to. It is the condition in which separate self-sourcehood has fallen away.An unsurrendered person is still gripping the partition: “I stand over here, God stands over there, and my will is finally mine.” That very stance is incompatible with the perception of no-second-source.So the barrier is not that God needs revenge. The barrier is geometric: as long as the creature insists on being a second center, unicity is experienced as threat, loss, or hell rather than paradise.
>>42885844>Heaven is not just a place you get admitted to.The heavenly realms very much are a place.>It is the condition in which separate self-sourcehood has fallen away.No. Heavenly realms are still very much a place in the material.>An unsurrendered personyou do not have to surrender to God to leave samsara.You DEFINITELY dont have to surrender to get to the heavens.You sound exceedingly Christian in your conceptions.
Is this just another butthurt Indian post? I have enough of this shit with the millions of Prottie denominations.
>>42887510By heaven I mean liberation, not bondage. How can someone be liberated who is still gripping the partition between themselves and God?
>>42881610For a seeming Vaishnava you seem very crass. We don't celebrate non-believers going to hell like Abrahamists do. From our perspective, the buddha served a function, and that was to pull miscreants away from slaughtering animals in the name of so-called religion. Then, later, Sankaracharya pulled such miscreants away from nastika way of life. Finally, our acharyas pull everyone back towards the Supreme Personality of Godhead again. God arranges things very nicely for everyone according to their situation. We may attack the Shunyavada and Mayavada ideas, but we shouldn't think ill of them and Krsna never has.
>>42888510*we shouldn't think ill of people beholden to Sunyavada and Mayavada ideasThat is what I meant to say
>>42881610Daily reminder that visnu was cuck who's wife lakshmi was fucked by a demigod (Chandra deva). And this is written in their own holy book; Matsya purana:23.23ततः समाप्तेऽवभृथे तद्रूपालोकनेच्छवः ।कामबाणाभितप्ताङ्ग्यो नवदेव्यः सिषेविरे ॥"After the avabhṛtha (concluding bath of the sacrifice), nine goddesses, their bodies pierced by the arrows of Kāma and eager to behold Soma's beauty, attended upon him.23.26धृतिस्त्यक्त्वा पतिं नन्दिं सोममेवाभजंस्तदा ।स्वकीया इव सोमोऽपि कामयामास तास्तदा ॥Dhṛti abandoned her husband Nandin and resorted to Soma. Soma, in turn, desired them as though they were his own wives."Matsya Mahapuran Chapter 23 Verses 1-6: Shiv made Chandradev His forehead ornament due to which the shine and the glory of Chandradev reached all the worlds.The Matsya Mahapuran is a Sattwik Mahapuran, as written in the Garuda Mahapuran, a Sattwik Vaishnav Mahapuran, itself. (Garuda Mahapuran Brahma Khanda Chapter 1).Agni Mahapuran Chapter 274 Verses 1-25: Lakshmi fell in love with Chandradev, after looking at Chandradev. Lakshmi abandoned her husband Nārāyan and she ran towards Chandradev. Lakshmi entertained only Chandradev. Chandradev treated Lakshmi as his wife and Chandradev bestowed affection on Lakshmi. Nārāyan and other Devas wanted to curse Chandradev but couldn't, as Chandradev became the sovereign monarch of the three worlds.
>>42888510>>42888526Buddhists are annoying dude
>>42888371>By heaven I mean liberationThat's silly.It's like saying "by health, I mean injecting heroin."They arent the same. At all.
>>42888670How do you reckon they’re different?
>>42888766Heavenly realms can be reached through proper living. Heaven is the reward for living well, materially. It has nothing to do with liberation or surrender.
>>42888773By ‘heaven’ I do not mean a temporary heavenly realm inside saṃsāra. I mean the final state beyond bondage: the end of experienced separation/independent sourcehood. On your own map, that would have to be beyond every material heaven.
>>42888801>By ‘heaven’ I do not mean a temporary heavenly realm inside saṃsāraAnd I said that is silly. That is what the word refers to.
>>42888806I’m using it in the Abrahamic sense, not svarga. It does not mean ‘temporary karmic reward-realm within samsara’. So translate instead of fighting the word: I mean union with the King.
>>42888822>I’m using it in the Abrahamic sense>>42887510>You sound exceedingly Christian in your conceptions.Yes, I thought so.It doesnt really work to use that framework because it doesnt make any distinction between Bhagavan's eternal realm and the Heavenly realms.With that in mind, we can go back to what I said.>>42885804>Not a reason to be sent to hellish realms. Krishna is not vindictive like the Christian conception.>There are people in heaven who reject Vishnu as well.Do you understand now?
>>42888832My response to that was that Heaven is not just a place you get admitted to based on a deity’s arbitrary whims. It’s geometric, and there is ultimately no neutral outside. There is only His reality, encountered either as surrendered participation or as contradiction. Buddha explicitly didn’t surrender and called surrender to God irrelevant, so that’s why I think he’s in hell.
>>42889837You're still trapped in conceptual thinking and dualism, that's why you only see surrendering, submission to a supreme being, as an escape.
>>42889975Why do you think that? I’m a nondual theist.
>>42889837>Heaven is not just a place you get admitted to based on a deity’s arbitrary whims.No, not generally. There are rules to get into heaven.But it has nothing to do with surrendering to bhagavan. That is about liberation.>Buddha explicitly didn’t surrender and called surrender to God irrelevant, so that’s why I think he’s in hell.Such claims wont send you to hell.Do you know of the subterranean heavenly realms?
>>42890096I believe that unicity forces a dichotomous outcome: defending oneself as a separate source, or surrender to the sourcehood of God. A complex multiplicity of karmic realms doesn’t interest me that much because once the central question becomes “Is there a second source?”, elaborate cosmic geography becomes secondary.
>>42890112> karmic realms doesn’t interest me that muchThen why keep talking about hell, and getting it wrong?
>>42890536How else does an unsurrendered person experience God’s sovereignty unconcealed?
>>42890644They can be in heaven.There is an infinite samsara to experience in such a state.
>>42891737Ok. I don’t believe that. I believe God is perfectly polarizing to the heaven/hell dichotomy and there are only two outcomes.
>>42892567>I don’t believe that.That's because you are coming from an Abrahamic position. So your use of Krishna is unwarranted.Thus we get back to my original statement.Again.>Not a reason to be sent to hellish realms. Krishna is not vindictive like the Christian conception.>There are people in heaven who reject Vishnu as well.
>>42892634It’s not unwarranted as Krishna is a monotheist too. The geometries of Gita and Hebrew Bible match: God alone acts. The only way they could be incompatible would be if you forced a wedge by treating Krishna and Hashem as two separate divine sources rather than two traditions naming the one divine Source.
>>42893426>It’s not unwarrantedIt is because it has a completely different cosmology and understanding of self and how Bhagavan interacts with others.>The only way they could be incompatible"They worship only me, though they do so in a wrong way."You can say they are pointing to the same Supreme. You cannot say they have the same understanding of that Supreme.Case in point:Krishna is not vindictive like the Christian conception.There are people in heaven who reject Vishnu as well.
>>42893528Are you calling Christ vindictive? That’s the only way to get to “the Christian conception” being intrinsically vindictive. For the same God who became famous for commanding love of enemies and forgiveness, “vindictive” is not an accurate description I think.The primary difference between the Bible and the Gita is the Bible particularizes the encounter with God to the body and biography, whereas Gita more readily relativizes that biography: bodies arise and perish; the deepest identity is not exhausted by this particular embodied history, etc. But that difference is hardly fatal, it is just a difference in emphasis.
>>42893735>Are you calling Christ vindictive?I'm calling the Christian conception of The Father vindictive, yes.>“vindictive” is not an accurate description I think.I dont care what you think.It is a conception of God that punishes for not following their demands. That is vindictive.>The primary difference between the Bible and the GitaThere are many. I would say the primary is that the self is eternal, not created even by God.
>>42881610Lmao at any westerner concerning themselves with this jeet civil war on the astral plane.
>>42893757> I'm calling the Christian conception of The Father vindictive, yes.“The Christian conception” of the Father is Jesus saying “if you have seen Me, you have seen the Father.” These are not two separate beings in the classical Trinity. Therefore, all your accusations fall directly onto Christ too. Is that wise, or an accurate judgment?> It is a conception of God that punishes for not following their demands. That is vindictive.No, it’s the geometry of a creature trying to persist in the lie of its own independence. The fire need not mean divine spite. If it’s actually true that God alone acts, then there is no neutral territory outside the single Act to run to.> There are many. I would say the primary is that the self is eternal, not created even by God.Even the eternal ātman possesses no independent being apart from Krishna. The Gita strongly resists that: Krishna calls Himself the supreme foundation & source and says beings *depend upon* Him.
