/lit/ - Literature

>>22902625
Do you have a master list of exactly what moments in the Bible are allegorical and which are not?
Also, why was the story of Adam and Eve not treated as mere allegory at any of the many Catholic churches i attended in my youth? That is to say, no attempt was made to differentiate the "realness" of Adam vs his later descendants.

>>22779927
The solution from a western pov is to apply a diluted solution of textual criticism and understand the historical, dialectical process in which sectarian buddhisms were developed, that is to say, the human intention behind passages in Mahayana literature denigrating non-Mahayana is all too obvious, much like the passages in the nikayas purely arguing against highly specific non-Buddhist philosophical positions. Will one really fall into hell for having learned the Mahayana but opted for the "Hinayana"? Or does this speak to exasperating debates which must have taken place and their subsequent abridgment for posterity? I don't see much value in reproducing traditional Buddhist doxographies/sectarianisms in a western context except as study guides for related bodies of literature, and where those sentiments occur in the text, the writers aren't really talking to you but their contemporaries. That is to say, one can study any and all branches of Buddhism insofar as one rejects both hyperprotestantism and supersessionism, which are arguments for particular readings rather than being actual teachings themselves.

>>22678665
with silence

>>22525776
I have about 60 books, mostly scriptures and treatises with a few academic works, and a big ass buddha statue, and I light lots of incense because smoking is based. That's about as much practice as the average contemporary Japanese but no I don't go to Buddhist church on Sundays and sing psalms with other Buddhists.

>>22151871
The people Nagarjuna was arguing with were full of shit anyway

>>22076830
>It's very hard to refute a devine creator.
It would be very easy to refute the Christian God albeit. Just do a study on death rates of cancer patients who have family members praying for them vs those whose families don't pray (or are muslim etc).
We all know what the results would be.

>>21873549
They have staked their entire psyche in eternity on a book and therefore need to get regular positive feedback about said book to reinforce their mental house of cards.

>>21842364
>skimming wikipedia
/lit/ never fails to disappoint

What causes this much seethe in you? If demons are real you must be under the influence of one.

>>21775220
Nietzsche is a sledgehammer. He told you as much. You can let go of him once you've cleared the obstacle. However, the sort of people who now infest the board largely affirm the things he critiqued, so we shall require his services for the foreseeable future.

>>21675093
Avatamsaka Sutra

>>21596423
>It is a dream come true to hear that they can keep doing whatever they’ve been doing as non-enlightened people
You really ought to stick to being a protestant; it's quite obvious to you after all that readings of texts are totally inerrant so long as you just read them and believe in your reading of them being inerrant, no need to worry about you having misunderstood something just keep clinging to the book. Who needs the furniture when you can have the assembly manual right?

>>20669151
There isn't One. And there isn't Many either. Stay in that other shit thread, no need for two

>>20416373
All the westoids are themselves "sophists," so your point is what exactly?

>>20331225
He used Explosion, does more damage than Self-Destruct to the target

>>20102726
>>20102778
>denying delusions is nihilism
ngmi

>>20066889
>>20066998
Anatman or nairatmya is inseparable from the doctrine of all dharmas or elements of experience as being momentary—hence they are identityless. This is in the nikayas and is picked up with greater emphasis by Mahayanists, who are going to attack the reification of these dharmas by the Sarvastivadins, just as if they were as soluble skandhas/aggregates, and the exegetical method they use (sunyata) later evolves into its own formal school. So across both the earlier Buddhist schools and into the Mahayana, anatman remains the defining characteristic of Buddhism, and that which serves to consistently distinguish it from its many sectarian and non-Buddhist dialectical partners in India over the centuries. Meanwhile "soul" is largely a translation quirk of western Christians going back to the 19th century. To say "there is no enduring identity in conditioned experience of momentary phenomena" has nothing to do with whether a God breathed life into you or not. You could perhaps comb the texts to see if there was a opinion on this or not, but would seem evident that such a notion cannot be construed as the "original" teaching prior to sectarian development.

>>19923091
Not him but Nietzsche largely uses Buddhism as a character in the drama of his own philosophy, one with some but not exact correspondence to the actual religion. His Buddhism only comes into play to beat up Christianity, and he considers it beyond good and evil and free of ressentiment, unlike the more moralizing Christianity. But he also considers both to be nihilism. No Buddhist or Christian has ever argued their beliefs are nihilism, but if we follow Nietzsche in centering the definition of nihilism on world- or life-denial, the Christian who wants to escape to heaven and be with God is a nihilist while the Buddhist who believes nirvana is in samsara is not.

>>19609794
>the Buddhists failed to come up with any arguments that would refute such a conception by demonstrating how it violates logic.
It's not anything new to refute, and a reheat of previous ideas about theology, permanence, etc, all of which Buddhism had already argued against."But what if the atman was brahman, and brahman just farted out illusions by his nature?" Too bad there is no atman or brahman/isvara anyway, why would the debate need to continue? Hindus kept shuffling the same ideas around and finally outverbiaged a late Buddhism that was in intellectual decline, as the centers of learning in the religion had shifted away from India. If you want people arguing about logic you'd need to go to Tibet, where in the 19th century some commentators like Mipham dusted off old Sanskrit works and briefly addressed AV. But even then, it's still just theology and atmavada, it's not anything Buddhism hadn't already argued against. A fresh coat of paint does not change this. Even Shankara would acknowledge his view was already contained in the Vedas. Since those were already rejected, what innovation is there except a new mouthpiece?

>>19574976
Permanence would make transmigration impossible. How does something permanent undergo change?

>>19463882
>every thing has exactly one meaning it must correspond to as its identity uncontaminated by other things
>by this logic the non-dualism Buddhists resolve into is contradictory
Were you correct about the one I'd have to agree with the other, but since you're not going to be able to prove it I guess we'll have to disagree. Take the fluxpill

>>19188127
In Jeetspeak, consciousness is vijñana and self is atman. Vijñana is one of the aggregates or skandhas, which are usually given as five, all related to perceiving or experiencing phenomena in some way. Vijñana is tied to sensory perceptions, basically you have an eye consciousness of what is seen by the eye, an ear consciousness of what is heard by the ear, etc. For Buddhists these are momentary and do not add up to a permanent self. Nor do the other aggregates, or skandhas, hence the atman cannot be located in the skandhas or apart from them, an-atman, no-self. This has been the subject of debate for millennia

>>19140189
You will never find any spiritual fulfillment in a theistic self-denying nihilistic cult

>>19081537
That's straight from the core prajñaparamita literature of Mahayana so yes it makes it to Zen eventually. And even further back to the Pali there's similar formations in the brahmajala and mahasattipatthana suttas