[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

Search:


View post   

>> No.17517451 [View]
File: 163 KB, 562x800, DB5E2EA9-5B43-4711-BD9C-3F72A63E02B5.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17517451

>>17517270
>Not really. It just relies on some prior thing
False, because that prior thing arises from dependent origination, which depends on that thing viz the 12 links, which depend upon dependent origination existing as a link of 12 chains and so on ad infintium, extending the timeline back infinitely doesn’t magically account for what permits this regress to exist
>>17517282
>>What cause did he have to create?
Advaita says it is God’s eternal uncaused nature to wield his power of maya or ‘creation’. An eternal uncaused nature does not need another additional justification but is self-sufficient unto itself as a reason
>If we predicate this absolute uncaused pure being with tasks, now we need something to have led us from there not being a world to there being a world as a consequence of that being.
Only if you accept that this had a beginning instead of always being the case, which Advaita and some other theologies completely reject
>There is a highly strict definition of existence being used, such that a thing must have a permanent unique substance.
God is formless, and a formless substance is an oxymoron, so that’s a false classification of existence which doesn’t apply to the transcendental and unconditioned existence of God who is formless
>And if this were so, one thing could not cause other things or even appear to.
And why is that?
>A seed would always be a seed and you would never get sprouts
But seeds don’t posses intelligence or powers, they grow according to the ‘blueprints’ directing growth in their cells and the nutrients they receive, but God possesses powers that He wields, he is not a seed, so that is an inappropriate anology
>>17517285
Advaita denies that Brahman interacts with any separate universe, but I don’t even have to make recourse to that argument because you are using the word ‘interaction’ wrong and your arguments falls apart for that very reason. The definition of an interaction is a reciprocal action or influence. If only God affects the universe and the universe does not affect God back its not an interaction because it is not reciprocal, thus God remains unconditioned.

Navigation
View posts[+24][+48][+96]