/lit/ - Literature

>>20197730
I love debates m8s so much energy to quell my doubts

this post resonates with every time a Guenon Advaita enters the thread.
Sorry m8s I just accepted anatta as truth but not as packaged and sold in stores, as really taught by the TRADITION.

>>19543163

Meditations by Descartes. But he ends up proving the self exists.

When you read these ideas, who gets terrified of them?

I think what is really sad is people like Metzinger being recognized as intellectuals or as being of importance in the field. It's truly mind boggling. He's such a hack. I read his Ego Tunnel. It's poetry. There's nothing of substance. It actually annoys me alot people can get away with shit like that. Like fuck.

Ligotti is just self-contradicting; basically you suffer and you lie to yourself but you also don't exist. I know he reconciles these two by saying the paradox is inherent to reality or whatever but I think it's evident that's just plain old sophistry or trivialism. I want to give him a hug

Buddhists bro I don't feel so good...

>>19418175
Ok anon, you asked for it..

>>15163991
Stfu ai bot

>
Come away O human child
To the waters and the wild
With a fairy hand in hand
For the world’s more full of weeping than you can understand …

>>15031948
btfo his entire life and enlighten him right there

>>14956598

>>14941844
>I can't give any examples whatsoever supporting the notion that illusions and emptiness can be self-aware because it's a nonsensical proposition which contradicts basic logic and common sense and so I'll just claim that if you only meditated you'd see that I'm actually right
kek, just as the copypasta predicted

>>14713904
based, thanks
>>14714012
thanks for the pro-tip
>>14713821
may we all reach the same heights inshallah
>>14707212
kek
>>14713529
thankfully the accent mark in his name makes it different
>>14709484
Buddhist non-dualism not always but often has the tendency to arrive at a sort of spiritual materialism that is antithetical to the eternal truth.
>>14709627
this
>>14708297
This is invaluable, thank you based anon
>>14702670
Sadly I think the tradition is no longer genuinely active.

>>14529029
It's not, that's why it attracts all the crypto-materialists like flies to a rotting corpse

>>14442892

>>14381716

>>13525663
Lol, the Buddhist Redditor reveals himself by how he posts like a 15 year old hopped up on mountain dew. How would what you posted in any way make Advaitins or Jains seethe? You just posted some lines of Buddha saying that things dependently arise, but Jains, Advaitins and other Hindus don't accept Buddha and his words as scriptural or as otherwise valid sources of doctrine. Why would that make them seethe when they don't take it seriously? Buddha doesn't prove anything in that text you posted but just states his views which non-Buddhists don't care about or attribute any importance to.That's like me posting Upanishad lines saying the Atma exists and then writing BUDDHISTS SEETHING HAHAHAA in all caps like a teenager. Dependent arising as the cause of existence/samsara is complete nonsense btw and has been BTFO by better thinkers, there is a reason that Madhyamaka rejects it as an actual literal explanation for the cause of Samsara. Buddhism has no explanation for why samsara and the world exist unless you take dependent arising as literal which is retarded and looks like shit in comparison to Vedanta.

>>13525519
You are dodging his central point which is that infinite dependence and change are not mutually exclusive with permanence, real existence, infinite existence etc. You clowns fall into these mental traps of uncritically accepting "dude everything is interdependent which means not real or something" but dont stop to consider there are many feasible alternative viewpoints regarding such things but then when people bring them up you plug your ears because you don't want to face the fact that the position you take is not the natural conclusion but is in fact dogmatic and subjective.
> Everything appears to be interdependent, meaning everything we see existing relies on something else.
>Nothing that relies on something else to exist has existence as its essence because nothing that relies on something else can explain its own existence.
Yes, but that logic points to everything being predicated on and sustained by something which is real and existent (i.e. Brahman etc). Illusions which have no inherent existence cannot mutually arise and be witnessed by a consciousness which itself isn't real, that's nonsensical garbage. The key mistake you are making is taking the Buddhist description of the phenomenology of how mental experiences condition one another and then trying to apply it as an ontological model which always ends up becoming total shit and a laughingstock that's easily debunked by Vedantists et al.

Where to begin? First off Advaita as this poster notes >>13486260 has a coherent metaphysical system that lucidly bridges together all of its different teachings without relying on "w-well the Buddha only was concerned with practice and not metaphysics". Any one is free to disagree with Advaita and some of it must be accepted on faith but it is a complete and coherent system without any serious logical faults or contradictions, the other Vedanta schools have been trying to critique it for over a thousand years (the Buddhists were unable to even mount a serious attempt at doing so) and the academics generally agree that the Advaitins have successfully refuted each critique. Buddhists will try to tell you that the Buddhism in the PC is a complete system too but start to stammer when you ask them about dependent-origination. Buddha never explained why dependent-origination existed and it really fails as a satisfactory explanation for existence. There are many flaws with it such as the unanswered questions of how and why it exists in the first place, how it could proceed so orderly and smoothly without an exterior organizing/intelligent influence and so on. Not being hamstrung by the taboo of "bald man say answering abstract questions bad!" Advaita was free to come up with a brilliant system of metaphysics.

There is also the point that the 'base' or 'original' material of Advaita is way more interesting than Buddhism. Buddhism never comes close to reaching the philosophical depth and profundity of Advaita until they started to make up Buddhist scriptures and falsely attribute them to Buddha (this includes Madhyamaka, Yogachara and virtually all other Mahayana), with Advaita you can be confident that the pristine goods are right there at the beginning instead of trying to rationalize "well uh these later scriptures not taught by Buddha are like TOTALLY legit bro". Also, the early Upanishads that Advaita gets its ideas from long predate the life of Buddha (who was clearly influenced by them).

A third point is that Advaita has not degenerated into the intellectual disarray of a bunch of competing and irreconcilable interpretations like Buddhism has. Shankara explains things with such clarity that there is little room for these to arise, the differences between the sub-schools of Advaita mostly amount to semantic arguments over a few concepts. With Buddhism nobody is even really sure what his ideas were, the Pali Canon is already material that has been edited and most experts agree it differs in subtle ways from pre-sectarian Buddhism; you have a wide range of Buddhist schools with hugely different interpretations because of the lack of clarity in the first place; just pop into any Buddhist thread to see them at each other throats with Theravadins attacking Mahayanists for having faked scriptures and Mahayanists attacking Theravadins for various reasons.

>>13475403
>mfw a Buddhist tells me to read his shitty fake made up Buddhist scriptures
No thanks, I prefer the original doctrine and not the fake breakaway version of a doctrine based on texts falsely attributed to Buddha whose actual ideas are themselves just an uninspiring and lame ripoff of the original (the Upanishads)