Alleged conflict between ‘Buddhism’ and ‘Brahmanism’

If the ‘I’ cannot be individuated or described, then there is no possible distinction between the ‘I’ and ‘the Brahman’. They are different names for ‘self-awareness’ which pick out the differential access that individuals have to ‘self-awareness’. Hence, the curious distinction that some Indian traditions make. On the one hand, the ‘I’ is alleged to be identical with the ‘Brahman’; on the other, the same traditions distinguish between ‘Atmagyaana’ and ‘Brahmagyaana’. These two ‘gyanaas’ can be two types of knowledge, if, on one reading, they are knowledge about two different objects, namely ‘atman’ and ‘Brahman’. If, however, they are identical, there could be only one knowledge. Second, even that is not possible. We can only have knowledge of something, if that something exists. If Atman or Brahman exist in this Universe, they are also subject to the processes that occur here. One such is decay and disintegration. Therefore, if we think this problem through, there is only one conclusion possible (if we assume that all Indians have not always been imbeciles): the gyaana is about the processes of accessing the real. It is not and cannot be about the real.

This means that the debate within the Indian traditions is not and could not have been about the nature of ‘atman’ or ‘Brahman’. Thus, the idea that is propagated as ‘the’ truth about the alleged conflict between the dvaita and the advaita is spurious and false. There was clearly debates and conflicts. But these cannot be about the nature of the real.

The same is true about the alleged conflict between ‘Buddhism’ and ‘Brahmanism’. Atman and Anatman are not conflicting doctrines about the real at all; they could not be. It is logically impossible that this was the debate between representatives of these traditions, unless we assume that Indians are congenitally incapable of thinking logically,. Those who sell this story, whether in India or abroad, the western savants and their Indian slaves, are the truly perfect imbeciles, which they actually think that Indians are. These idiots are our professors and many guru’s in India and elsewhere.

Thus, we see that Ambedkar and the Ambedkarites (in India and elsewhere today) are total slaves of their western masters. To ‘convert’ from ‘Hinduism’ to ‘Buddhism’, as though they are conflicting religions, is to simply ape the western cretins who have been selling this story for nearly 200 years. Of course, the Ambedkarites do that because their fame and fortune depends on slavery. They would rather be slaves of cretins than live free as thinking human beings. The western ‘thinkers’ in the US fete them because they love the adulation and adoration they get from these Indians. And, as is the case with Pollock, they are “friends with benefits” with Indians:  getting millions of dollars from idiots like Narayan Murthy and receiving national awards from the Indian government.