/lit/ - Literature

>>15455842
>Your problem is that you're starting with this basic idea of Eternalism, and then getting upset when you can't find it and throwing your hands up and saying that because Eternalism isn't, it's Nihilism. That's the Eternalism-Nihilism pendulum
No I'm not, stop being such a petulant child. You are literally unable to respond to any criticism of Buddhism without trying to relegate the opponents point to some strawman argument allegedly predicated on an incorrect basis when in actuality that has nothing to do with my real point. I'm not talking about any self or eternalism or nihilism at all.

Without taking any position on what eternalism is, without taking any position on what nihilism is, without taking any position on whether the self exists or not; the following points remain true:

1) Buddhists deny that Nirvana is non-existence
2) Buddhists simultaneously claim that the sense of being a living being is predicated on the aggregates, that conciousness is one of the aggregates and that in enlightenment the aggregates are destroyed and that in Parinirvana there is no aggregates remaining, no conciousness remaining, and nothing else having to do with a living being or entity remaining
3) This results in a contradiction where Parinirvana is denied to be nothingness but is described as something that's indistinguishable from nothingness because in both cases there are no sensations or entities whatsoever
4) The fire metaphor doesn't solve the contradiction because in the fire metaphor the flames continue in a latent state in embers but the Buddhist doesn't admit any latent existence or the continuing existence of anything in Parinirvana

Now, if you are capable of doing so, try to respond to the above contradiction without trying to make a diversion by accusing me of taking positions which I never actually claimed were true, e.g. claims about the self etc

>again, Nagarjuna wrote an entire fucking book on this
Nagarjuna is not an authority on anything, the man was literally retarded and was heavily criticized by Theravadins and Yogacharins. Multiple books and essays have been written by scholars which show how his logic collapses under serious scrutiny (i.e. Emptiness Appraised, Buddhist Illogic etc). His own ideas result in absurd infinite regresses which debunk his own teachings (pic related). Saying "Nagarjuna said this" is a red-flag that something is a dumb idea which deserves to be treated with suspicion.

>>15423863
>>15423759