/lit/ - Literature

the last one died

>desire is antecedent to the subject

>>15985351
>He didn't address most things
Nagarjuna would tell you that the Buddha didn't address anything at all

Searle makes the point that much human communication presupposes the mind-independent existence of many of the entities which are communicated · about. This is a condition for the possibility of communication, and the fact that one does take part in such communication proves that one assumes that such entities do actually exist independently of one's mind. Such communication also, of course, assumes that the people with whom one communicates exist independently of one's mind. If I am to say to you that I am going to bathe in the pool of water, I must assume that the pool of water which I am planning to bathe in is accessible to your cognitions, as well as to mine. I also must assume that this pool of water is not simply a shared conceptual construct which we both have, but that there is an actual, i.e. mind-independent, pool of water which I (and you too) may bathe in (provided it is large and deep enough!). What could it mean, I wonder, to believe that one is going to bathe in a conceptually constructed pool of water (and, perhaps, with a conceptually constructed friend)?! So, a difficult problem for Nagarjuna is how, if everything is a conceptual construct, a public world would be possible.

Nagarjuna would of course admit that the unenlightened person believes that (many) entities have svabhava, i.e. are more-than conceptually constructed, even though this is not, according to Nagarjuna, a correct belief. Unenlightened people do not know that the world which they conceptually construct is a conceptual construction. On the contrary, unenlightened people erroneously perceive and erroneously believe the conceptually constructed world to be (largely) mind-independent. As Candrakirti says, entities, though in fact conceptually constructed, 'exist [as mindindependent entities] from the perspective of the consensus of the world'. ('jig rten grags pa'i sgo nas yod pa yin). This 'perspective of the consensus of the world' is, of course, wrong, deluded. The true nature of entities is hidden, not apparent, for unenlightened people. Thus, perhaps Nagarjuna would claim, it is the false belief in more-than-conceptually constructed entities which allows the unenlightened person to participate in a public world. But, then, it is not really that there is a public world which the unenlightened person participates in, but rather a world which he falsely believes to be public (but which is really his conceptual construction)!

Although you may spend your life killing
you will not exhaust all your foes
But if you quell your own anger
your real enemy will be slain

Although you may spend your life killing
you will not exhaust all your foes
But if you quell your own anger
your real enemy will be slain

>>14267069

Because there is not one single phenomenon
That is not a dependent-arising,
There is not one single phenomenon
That is not empty

existence is empty. consciousness is empty

embrace Śūnyatā my friend and you will see that your crisis too is empty

>>14267080

consciousness, if it were real, would have phenomenal properties -- taste, tingles, sights of color and the like. the illusory consciousness we actually have has quasi-phenomenal properties -- functional properties which trick us into saying that we have tastes and see colors

>>13944815
>Buddhism must fit neatly into Western rationalist conceptions of substance metaphysics
"no"

>>13915376
You are a fool!
http://the-wanderling.com/sunyata.html

"Whatever can be conceptualized is therefore relative, and whatever is relative is Sunya, empty. Since absolute inconceivable truth is also Sunya, Sunyata or the void is shared by both Samsara and Nirvana. Ultimately, Nirvana truly realized is Samsara properly understood."

NAGARJUNA IS BASED!

You don't exist.

>>13266194
based and truth pilled

>>12344691
Actually it can be both or neither as well.