/lit/ - Literature

Buddhist Monk: Yes, that’s the statement. Everything in the empirical world is only a stream of passing Dharmas, which are mere processes - impersonal and evanescent processes. These Dharmas can be characterized as Anatta (Anatma - Bereft of Self), i.e., being without a persisting self, without independent existence. [The Dharma theory of Buddhism]

Acharya: Ok. I get your point of view about momentariness, impermanence and Anatta. May I ask you a very simple question? When you started the sentence “The Question is immaterial and irrelevant” – it was immaterial and irrelevant to whom? What or who is the Subject to whom those perceptions appeared?

Buddhist Monk: (Enraged) To no one in particular. There is nothing more to this alleged (sic) world’s existence than the co-ordinated flux of wide variety of elemental, co-dependent factors (Dharmas), which bring forth collective experience of world-consciousness in individual and universal aspects. So, the perception occurred to some non-existent entity.

Acharya: Ok! Hypothetically accepting your view, tell me Monk, who is the witness to these arising of dependent elements? Who/what is the witness to the flux? Against what the flux is not static? If you are moving in a train at the same speed with another train, you will see both trains as stationary. A perception of speed requires comparison with a stationary object. Likewise, perception of flux requires a changeless object for measure of standard. Who/What is that?

Buddhist Monk: I object! What is the necessity of a Witness? That too, eternal permanent witness?! No way such a thing exists. People die and their trace vanishes, things get broken, Worlds get destroyed – all without leaving trace. Where is permanence?

Acharya: Hold your breath, Holy Monk. A witness is necessary in order to have a cognition of any phenomenon – take the event of your momentariness or flux. A witness can only say something is transitory or momentary. If there is no Witness, who would perceive and who would make a statement? – Who is it that who sees and says Everything is impermanent – That entity has to be present, existent and permanent”)

Buddhist Monk: If you say there has to be a Witness, who will witness that witness? How would you establish that Witness exists? What you say is wrong because there will be infinite regress. You say a Witness is necessary to claim cognizance. Fine, then tell me, who will say that there is a Witness? Where will this infinite loop end? In your Theory, everything has to be present to make the Witness known. This is nothing but Dependent Origination.

Acharya: Dear Friend, there is no logical necessity (Akanksha) for something to grasp the grasper. The witness stands self-proved. (This is one of the greatest sources of Pramana – Arthapatti as used by the Acharya)

>>17513321
Buddhism was a reaction to Hinduism. Buddhists were essentially ancient antifa members that were mad at the caste system (i.e. last men), so they took Hinduism and tried to negate the Self. This failed, obviously, but the arguments between Buddhists and Hindus definitely helped grow the philosophical tradition, culminating in Shankara (pbuh) who refuted every Buddhist he came across and restored basedness in India.