/lit/ - Literature

>>14512165
The logic that Nagarjuna uses in an attempt to show the truth of emptiness and related Madhyamaka teachings was completely taken apart and destroyed by the Buddhist professor Richard Robinson in pic related. The is absolutely no reason to take 'emptiness' or 'sunyata' seriously unless you want to believe in it for religious/dogmatic reasons (as opposed to entertaining pretensions of it being supported by logic)

>>14488301
OH NO NO NO NO

>>14431999

>>14428427

>>14381817
it's some mentally ill Buddhist whose had a non-stop mental breakdown since people started posting this article where a philosophy professor completely destroyed Nagarjuna's logic, ever since then he's lurked /lit/ non-stop and posted the same images obsessing over Shankara and Guenonfag any time he spots a thread remotely related to them

Buddhism, not even once

>>14326725

>Madhyamaka teachings are correc-

>>14325024
>Nagarjuna
LOL

start with the Greeks, kiddo.

>>14230555
>Aristotle would wipe the floor with him in his worst day.
A professor of philosophy already did

>>14208664
>The concept of transcendent self is just another cope to deal with Buddha's no self/impermanence applied on universal scale.
The concept predates Buddhism and is mentioned in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad from some 300-200 years before Buddha, so it makes no sense to say that it's a "cope" to deal with Buddhism.
>Nagarjuna deals with this cope answer by extrapolating that no self/impermanence applies universally.
Nagarjuna never properly addressed, mentions or refutes the Transcendent Self of the Upanishads once, he only attacks the ideas of Nyaya and Samkhya and their notions of selves, but not the Vedanta/Upanishads which are different these. The Nyaya self is not transcendent and the Samkhya self mixes both transcendent and immanent features, whereas the Advaitic self is fully transcendent. None of Nagarjuna's arguments apply to Advaita. Also, Nagarjuna had flawed and inconsistent reasoning, a lot of what he says can be discounted (see pic related for example), he switches between two contradictory definitions of what 'real' means according to whichever supports his argument at that moment, which along with many other flaws makes his system fall apart.

>>14200967

>>14161694
>after all, if something is right, it doesn't matter whether nagarjuna was fudging who he heard it from or incorrect in thinking
True, but Nagarjuna was wrong, his logic in the MMK was destroyed by a philosophy professor (pic related)

>>14100134
No, that translation is phenomenal. The only person hating on it is this one mentally ill Buddhist poster. He has an intense hatred for Shankara and used to attack him every time someone posted him and would always shill Nagarjuna and say that Nagarjuna is better and that Shankara stole from him. When people started posting a picture (pic related) from a journal article by a philosophy professor who debunks the argument used in Nagarjuna's magnum opus by showing how Nagarjuna uses dishonest argumentation and flawed logic it caused some sort of mental breakdown in the Buddhist poster.

Instead of reflexively attacking Shankara like he used to, now he pretends to like Shankara and now accuses anyone who posts links to Shankara's work of being a neovedantist shilling neovedanta despite that Shankara's writings strongly disagree with neovedanta. He evidently hopes to discourage any sort of Shankara-posting by derailing any sort of discussion about him into accusations of neovedanta that are completely unrelated to Shankara. I hope that he is able to get help for his mental issues.

>>14037639
Shankara most likely did not read any of Nagarjuna's writings and just interacted with some Madhyamaka proponents which is why he appears to have regarded Madhyamaka as referring to some nihilistic void without even any truth/basis/reality/dharmadhatu such as Nirvana underlying it that might save it from being nihilistic (and this is exactly how Nagarjuna defends himself against the charge of nihilism in his Vigrha-Vyavarttani, that is to say that he explains that he affirms the empirical reality of the phenomenal world while only negating its ultimate reality, and that he is not negating everything as non-existent and that it would be nihilistic to negate everything as unreal but Nagarjuna only negates the relative and phenomenal but this is not nihilism because Nirvana is not negated). It was quite easy for Shankara to expose the contradictions of Sarvastivada and late-Yogachara because they engage in speculative metaphysics and metaphysical realism, Madhyamaka doesn't and merely claims to hold an absence of all views while allegedly exposing the inherent contradictions in all views. If Shankara would have been aware of how Nagarjuna defended himself against the charge of nihilism he might have responded that it implies absolutism of some sort and in doing so is hardly different from the Upanishads and Advaita.

At the end of the day though Madhyamaka is still fundamentally incoherent in that it has no explanation whatsoever for what causes samsara/ignorance and that Nagarjuna uses flawed logic to establish sunyata which was exposed by Richard Robinson as relying on logical fallacies and dishonest argumentation that presents and refutes strawmen arguments against sunyata that its opponents wouldn't actually accept (pic related).

>>14001619
Nice cope you hapless Buddhist clown. Nagarjuna ripped all his ideas from the Upanishads, the stuff people allege that Śaṅkarācārya took like the notion of a higher and lower knowledge appear in Hindu texts hundreds of years before Nagarjuna such as in the Manduka Upanishad verse 1.1.4. that mentions the two types of Brahma-knowledge, para and apara. Nearly a millenium before Nagarjuna and hundreds of years before Buddha as well the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad verse 2.3.1. and others also say that Brahma should be known in two forms, the one gross, mortal, limited and definite and the other subtle, immortal, unlimited and indefinite; which amounts to practically the same thing as Mundaka 1.1.4. And despite getting so many wonderful ideas from the divine Upanishads the irony is that Nagarjuna still bungled it by formulating as his doctrine some nonsensical contradictory garbage that was completely BTFO by some random professor of philosophy (pic related). It's funny how nobody has ever been able to point to anything in the voluminous writing that Śaṅkarācārya left behind that you can logically refute with the same ease as with which our friend Richard Robinson defnestrated Nagarjuna, I wonder why...

Nagarjuna eternally btfo

>>13737902
>this kills the Madhyamika

>>13524419
Nagarjuna's logic was utterly destroyed by some literally who college professor (pic related). There is no competition.

/thread

>>13487828
>papanca
>Fantasies are worthless to anybody who is not a puthujjanas addicted to thoughts.
>The idiotic idea of the first cause, the first mover and so on is just papanca and all this disappear once the infatuation with ideas stops.
This is all just more of the same idiotic circular reasoning that Buddhists like to substitute for rational arguments. First off, Advaita Vedanta acknowledges that the truth can only be fully known and experienced through direct spiritual realization, the Upanishads themselves make this point and it comes up again and again in Shankara's writings. Their arguments about causation and related metaphysics is just to round out their teachings and to provide a logical basis for the school of thought without depending upon those arguments for anything, all of them are secondary or even optional to the central teachings of Advaita. It's circular reasoning plain and simple to say that anything past what Buddha taught is useless conceptual proliferation, it's the same brainlet-tier argument without any basis as when people say other religions are objectively wrong because the Bible says so; and it's doubly wrong because Advaita acknowledge that ones has to move beyond such discussions to proceed to a higher level (although Advaita isn't limited by an autistic opposition to these discussions).

Also, to even make that point is hypocritical because many Buddhist thinkers came up with elaborate and convoluted arguments and metaphysical discussions in an attempt to prove the correctness of either their or Buddha's teachings. Nagarjuna is the example of one such person that so many of you love to cite as important or worth reading despite his use of fake scriptures like the prajnaparamita sutras which the Buddha never taught, one cannot call the teachings of Advaita 'papanca' without also condemning Nagarjuna's ideas as such (and Nagarjuna's magnum opus MMK relies on shitty inconsistent logic which is easily btfo btw, see the pic attached to this post). However you want to try to spin it, the Buddha's giving of dependent-origination as the reason for existence without elaborating on the why and how is not a satisfactory answer and it appears inferior to many people when compared to the lengthy metaphysical discussions on existence and causation that are found in Vedanta.

>>13488100
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prat%C4%ABtyasamutp%C4%81da

>>13488327
>Somehow calling what is supposed to be unconditioned 'eternal, creative'...etc, ie conditioned qualities
Thats wrong, creativeness is only applied to Saguna (conditioned Brahman) not the unconditioned Brahman. Eternality is not a condition, something can 'exist' eternally without beginning and without end and be unconditioned at the same time.

>>13284936
Nagarjuna is a brainlet

>>13272839
>Read Nāgārjuna
yikes

>>13266194
>>13266837
*blocks your path*

>>13266946
kek

>>13090853
>>13089493
>>13089517

>yfw the magnum opus of the most revered thinker in Mahayana Buddhism collapses like a tower of Jenga blocks when prodded

how utterly embarrassing, imagine unironically thinking that Nagarjuna somehow discerned the truth of things with such pseud logic, lmao