/lit/ - Literature

>>15003024
>false dilemma
>aka 'I have no argument so i'll just dismiss it', cool
It's just basic logic. Instantaneous and non-instantaneous are mutually contradictory categories and they cannot be combined, there is no middle ground between them, this is my argument that I clearly laid out and you have chosen to avoid facing it directly. If you want to claim otherwise than you'll have to substantiate that reasoning, like several other points (such as Shankara's BTFOing of Yogachara) in this back-and-forth you have conceded defeat on them by not providing any argument

>that's quite a leap of logic to say that momentary existence implies constancy by virtue of its sequential nature
I'm not 'implying constancy', I was making the point that something can either last for a single moment, in which case it would be instantaneous, or it can last longer than that moment, in which case it is non-momentary. These are the only options available. Even if the object sticks around for one nanosecond longer than the "1 moment" it's not instantaneous anymore.

>this isn't basic logic, its a fallacy based on false premises. If cause and effect 'simultaneously' occur qua objects existence at the same moment, it would mean that the effect is contained in the cause apriori (satkaryavada), which amounts to a tautology.
The argument that momentariness makes causation impossible is equally as applicable in cases in which the effect is contained in the cause as in the cases when it is not. Buddhists may think that it is a tautology that effects can exist in the cause but that doesn't stop it from being true in everyday life, the constituents of curds already exist in milk, the constituents of paper already exist in trees. In the 12 steps of dependent origination the effect does not exist in the cause but momentariness still makes it impossible because each step doesn't last long enough to impact or be impacted by the previous/next step. In cases where the effect is contained in the cause such as milk solidifying into curds or cheese momentariness also makes this impossible because if something only lasts instantaneously then nothing (such as curds) can emerge from it as its effect because that emergence is non-momentary and requires a stable basis that doesn't flicker out of existence and get replaced by a new one at every moment.

>who said they don't exist in the moment? of course they do, that's what 'momentary existence' is defined as.
My point was that they can only affect anything else or be effected in the moment when they exist, but since this is instantaneous there is no time for there to be any sort of interaction or causation between the instantaneous object and anything else which is also momentary and so causation, movement etc become impossible.

>>14530088
Yes, the Upanishads describe Brahman as the material and efficient cause of creation in many verses, but there are also many verses which deny the reality of the world of appearances and which trace it to maya, avidya etc. The Advaitan is able to reconcile both positions by maintaining that Brahman is the cause of the world and the source from which it emerges and dissolves back into but that Brahman only appears to create via its power of maya while in reality Brahman never undergoing any real modification or creates anything. To maintain that creation is real and takes place and that Brahman is the cause as Vishishadvaitins like Ramanuja do is to take the side of the verses describing Brahman as the source of creation while abandoning the meaning of the verses describing creation as unreal. Only the Advaitins explanation is able to take both verses in account and show how the revealed texts are consistent throughout whereas the vishishtadvaitin is forced to throw out one set of verses.