/lit/ - Literature

Bumping myself

If something depends on something else to exist, it doesn't truly exist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prat%C4%ABtyasamutp%C4%81da

>>13517649
>From an Upanishadic perspective
Stopped reading right there

>>13517961
I’m not dogmatically tied to the Upanishads, but it’s the foundation I have, and I know that Buddhism uses a lot of the same vocabulary.

>>13517649
"no self" is a nihilistic revision, anatta actually translates to "not-self" which makes sense considering how the Buddha only ever spoke of Anatta in reference to specific objects of experience (Five Aggregates, mainly) which he would say are not-self. When asked whether there definitively is or is not a self, the Buddha refused to answer, refused to take a position. The Buddha called "existence or non-existence," "being or not-being" flawed/illusory views which do not represent the unconditioned nature of Nirvana, which transcends such dualities and lacks all conceptual distinctions.

>>13518055
How does one not take a stance on whether the self exists, yet assert that there are things which are not the self?

>>13518106
if I say x is not y, that doesn't mean I'm saying y doesn't exist
The Buddha doesn't even call anything (the psycho-physical) not-self that an Advaita Vedantin would disagree with.

>>13518179
>if I say x is not y, that doesn't mean I'm saying y doesn't exist
No, but if you don’t take a position on y yet say that x isn’t y, it seems to imply by negation that there is a y. Unless you would say y doesn’t exist at all, in which case you would be taking a position.

>>13518179
>if I say x is not y, that doesn't mean I'm saying y doesn't exist
it also doesn't mean "y does exist"
ex "a horse is not bigfoot"
does not mean bigfoot doesn't exist
does not mean bigfoot exists

>>13517649
>Buddha says everything is born, changes, and fades
>B-but a part of me survives r-right
No, if something survives is clearly not "you", nor a part of you, no nothing that have to do with the "I", don't be a pussy

>ITT: A Westerner attempts to understand Eastern Thought through a Western lens
Arrogance

>>13518238
>says the 16 year old angrily clacking away at his computer "I'm so mentally tough for understanding that something something my mind and peraonality and nothing else about me doesn't last forever, no I havn't seriously studied Hindu thought but I don't need to because IM SO TOUGH for facing down the abyss, hell yeah man!!! all you guys are just coping!! If only everyone was as so tough and unflinching as me, but what am I saying that's impossible because I'm superior for being so enlightened about nothingness lmao! fucking pussies!!!!!! Today I must remind them that they're pussies for not agreeing with the limited amount of eastern thought that I've read, that'll show them!!!

>>13518248
The worst thing you can do when trying to understand “Eastern thought” is to identify it as such. It is just thought. There is no such thing as “Eastern philosophy”.

>>13518309
That's why I said "Eastern Thought" and not "Eastern Philosophy" you stupid fucking moron. I hope one day you pay a hooker to tie you up and instead of dominating you she calls a couple of niggers over to fuck you. I hope they fuck you until you cry like a little bitch and then they bring you to their nigger house in their nigger town and they keep you tied up in their basement as their bitch. You'd be their nigger bitch and I hope these niggers force you to drink nigger cum in order to get food and water and on the weekends I hope these niggers invite their entire nigger pack over to fucking rape you and forcefeed you nigger dicks to drink niggercum you stupid fuck. And when these niggers are done with you I hope they just fucking let you go out of their nigger house but you know what? I hope you don't want to leave you stupid fucking faggot, I hope the Stockholm Syndrome kicks in so hard that you crave nigger cum and you go on to become one of the biggest BBC gay porn actors in the world. I hope the porn industry chews you up and spits you out with a bad coke addiction and an even bigger craving for nigger dick and nigger cum. I hope the trauma from these whole experience leads you to go get your balls cut off and your dick pushed inside out because you're so god damned confused by your craving for nigger dick and nigger cum that you try to become a woman. And I hope when you hit 35 and all the hormones in the world can't hide your aging male body, you fucking kill yourself because you're a fucking retard. Pay attention to my post next time instead of trying to one-up someone to get your little dopamine rush you window-licker.

Why are Advaitins so obsessed with Buddhism? Is it because of jealousy?

>>13518340
Okay but you’re still wrong. Eastern thought is just another geography’s philosophies. Sometimes these philosophies look more like those familiar to us than to those they neighbour.

>>13518348
Why am I wrong? Explain it to me? What is wrong with explaining that Westerners shouldn't use their philosophical tradition to examine Eastern Thought? Go ahead.

>>13518354
You assume the reader can’t take the work they read on its own terms. Everyone is always looking through their personal lens in a sense, but that doesn’t mean they’re applying the philosophies of their upbringing to it, if they’re being honest with themselves. You have to read things detached from your ego to read anything at all tbqh. How does anyone read a story written by someone a different age, gender, culture etc. if they can’t read it on its own terms. I might as well only read my own posts and ignore everyone else.

>>13517649
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FEnb2cFWKBs

>>13518375
lmao you've completely changed your point. shut the fuck up anon and go find a different thread to pseud around in

>>13518281
anon the buddha didn't teach annihilationism, you know that, but given the increasing threads of this kind by either advaintafag and others I think is pertinent pointing out that Atman and Nirvana are diametrically opposite, if something survives is not considerated liberation in the buddhist sense.As for your angry projection I will let it pass

>>13518196
this. However I get the impression that the not-self exists in a way that transcends our normal concepts such as 'exists or doesn't exist'. All these word games seem to boil down to something related to that.

>>13518391
>I posted him again!

>>13518395
You’ll understand one day

>>13518424
>try to look smart by misquoting someone
>get called out
>make up some other bullshit to try to recover
>shit that didn't work I'll just give him a boomer-tier platitude and pretend nothing happened
bravo

>>13518463
cope

>>13518468
Do you even know what that means? Lurk moar you stupid fuck

>>13518468
This. I gave a sufficient explanation. Why would I continue to spell it out for this egotistical retard.

>>13518486
>I misquoted someone and when he called me out I started talking about something completely different because I realized I had misquoted him and my midwit IQ prevents me from admitting when I'm wrong

>>13518506
I was wrong to put the phrase “Eastern philosophy” in quotes because you didn’t yourself say it, but you’re losing sight of the forest for the trees.

>>13518341
stop letting advaitins live rent-free in your head

>>13518407
I was only mocking him for dogmatically asserting buddhism as correct and for calling others pussies

>>13518341
Because they’re crypto-Buddhists in denial

>>13518413
The idea of something existing or not existing is itself a dualistic concept.

The Hindu becomes enlightened and discovers that the self does not exist. The Buddhist gets enlightened and discovers that the self does exist.

>>13518528
t. jealous advaitin

>>13518525
No, it isn't just a matter of semantics, your post attacked me for lumping the various thinkers of India and the Orient together into some kind of system of philosophy like the West when that was not written in my post at all. I didn't say or even imply anything close to that, you incorrectly inferred it from the phrase "Eastern Thought" and instead of asking me what I meant you decided to just assume I was Asia as some kind of quasi-Western tradition. When I asked you where in my post I said anything of the kind that you were accusing me of, you just switched gears entirely to some other nonsense.

>Then Vacchagotta…approached the Blessed one…and said: "Well, now, good Gotama, is there a self ?" The Blessed One remained silent. " Well, then, good Gotama, is there not a self?" Once again, then Blessed One remained silent (Strong 95).

>This passage from the Sumyuta-Kikaya (a Buddhist text) deals with one of the most important concepts in Buddhist philosophy: anatman. Anatman is the idea that there is no self; at least no self in the Hindu definition of atman. There are three aspects to the concept of anatman:

>1) lack of an essence

>2) impermanence

>3)interdependence on individuals and things.

>The idea that selves do not have an essence is based upon the belief on the existence of the five constituents: the body, consciousness, karmic activities, feelings, and perception.

>The combination of these five constituents creates who we are: no one part can represent us. Therefore, Buddhists argue that there is no single essence, which leads them to believe that there can be no self.

>Impermanence, the second belief, implies that everything changes and that nothing stays the same. This is a critical concept in Buddhist philosophy. If nothing stays the same, then there can be no permanent or constant self. We change with each experience, and with each moment we are alive. Therefore, we are different self every minute of our lives and the concept "self" becomes irrelevant.

>Finally, Buddhism also strongly stresses the idea of interdependence, that’s the notion that everything affects everything else in the phenomenal world. If one thing changes, then everything changes. Therefore, if the so-called self is dependent on everything else, then, this "self" does not really and cannot really exist on its own.

>The concept of anatman does not necessarily mean that there is not a self, however. The text displayed at the beginning of this page illustrates this idea. The quote shows that there is no"self", yet at the same time, there is no "no-self". In this sense, the Buddha is following the Middle way and does not give into either extreme eternalism or annihilitionism. He is also acknowledging the fact that there is a concept of the self, though Buddhism does not adhere to it.

>This idea of anatman or "no-self" is evident in Buddhist cultures and society. First, Buddhist cultures generally emphasizes the body as one of the five constituents. In Samkhya Hinduism and in Christianity to the contary, there is a strong idea of seperation between the two. Second, there is also a focus on the present rather that on the past or the future, as some other cultures tend to do. Because o the notion of impermanance, Buddhist know that the only constant thing is change itself, therefore they emphasize the present moment. This notion of enjoying one’s present situation is also apparent in cultures of Buddhist religio, and very different than the Western notion of working so hard to plan for the future that one often frogets the present moment they are in.

>>13518548
If you’re saying that “Eastern thought” should not be viewed from a “Western lens”, then you are inherently ignoring the variety that exists within both of these groupings. Some “Eastern” philosophies are more like certain “Western” philosophies than they are to each other. Sincerely understanding literally anything outside ourselves requires us to put our own lenses down. That isn’t switching goalposts; it’s the entire point.

>>13517649
Relevant passages:
>"Like the flame thrown out by the force of the wind
>Reaches its end, it cannot be reckoned.""
- Snp 5.6

"This world, Kaccàyana, usually bases (its views) on two things: on
existence and non-existence. Now, he who with right insight sees the
arising of the world as it really is, does not hold with the nonexistence of the world. And he who with right insight sees the
passing away of the world as it really is, does not hold with the
existence of the world.

The world, for the most part, is given to
approaching, grasping, entering into and getting entangled (as
regards views). Whoever does not approach, grasp and take his stand
upon that proclivity towards approaching and grasping, that mental
standpoint - namely, the thought: 'This is my soul' - he knows that
what arises is just suffering and what ceases is just suffering. Thus
he is not in doubt, is not perplexed and herein he has knowledge that
is not dependent on another. Thus far, Kaccàyana, he has right view.
'Everything exists,' this is one extreme. 'Nothing exists,' this is the
other extreme. Not approaching either of those extremes, the
Tathàgata teaches the Dhamma by the middle way: From ignorance
as condition formations come to be; from formations as condition
consciousness comes to be . . . Such is the arising of this entire mass
of suffering. From the complete fading away and cessation of that
very ignorance, there comes to be the cessation of formations; from
the cessation of formations, the cessation of consciousness . . . . .
Such is the cessation of this entire mass of suffering."
- SN 2.12.15

Thus, monks, a Tathàgata does not conceive of a visible thing as apart from sight; he does not conceive of an unseen; he
does not conceive of a 'thing-worth-seeing'; he does not conceive
about a seer.
He does not conceive of an audible thing as apart from hearing;
he does not conceive of an unheard; he does not conceive of a
'thing-worth-hearing'; he does not conceive about a hearer.
He does not conceive of a thing to be sensed as apart from
sensation; he does not conceive of an unsensed; he does not
conceive of a 'thing-worth-sensing'; he does not conceive about one
who senses.
He does not conceive of a cognizable thing as apart from
cognition; he does not conceive of an uncognized; he does not
conceive of a 'thing-worth-cognizing'; he does not conceive about
one who cognizes
- AN 4.24

>>13518568
Okay, I think I see the problem; you're just autistic. You don't understand colloquial speech. People generally speak in generalities unless explicitly qualifying their speech with words like "all" or "always" or "none" or "never". Now you're talking about exceptions, but exceptions to the rule really only reinforce the rule by virtue of the fact that they're exceptions. Any exceptions you could refer to really don't pertain to this thread in particular anyway, not with the book OP is trying to understand nor the stereotypical sort of Western dualism he tried to understand it with.

>>13518610
..."What do you think: Do you regard the Tathagata as form-feeling-perception-fabrications-consciousness?"

"No, lord."

"Do you regard the Tathagata as that which is without form, without feeling, without perception, without fabrications, without consciousness?"

"No, lord."

"And so, Anuradha — when you can't pin down the Tathagata as a truth or reality even in the present life — is it proper for you to declare, 'Friends, the Tathagata — the supreme man, the superlative man, attainer of the superlative attainment — being described, is described otherwise than with these four positions: The Tathagata exists after death, does not exist after death, both does & does not exist after death, neither exists nor does not exist after death'?"

"No, lord."...

"Very good, Anuradha. Very good. Both formerly & now, it is only stress that I describe, and the cessation of stress."

- SN 22.86

“Just as if, friend, two bundles of reeds were to stand one
supporting the other, even so consciousness is dependent on name-and-form and name-and-form is dependent on consciousness;

and the six sense-spheres on name-and-form, contact on the six sensespheres, feeling on contact, craving on feeling, grasping on
craving, becoming on grasping, birth on becoming and decayand-death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and despair are
dependent on birth. Thus is the arising of this entire mass of
suffering. But, friend, if one of those two bundles of reeds is drawn
out, the other one would fall down, and if the latter is drawn out the
former one will fall down. Even so, friend, with the cessation of
name-and-form, consciousness ceases; with the cessation of
consciousness, name-and-form ceases; with the cessation of
name-and-form, the six sense-spheres cease . . . . . Thus comes to
be the cessation of this entire mass of suffering.”
- SN 2 12 67

“But, bhikkhus, as to that which is called ‘mind(citta)’ and ‘mentality(mano)’ and ‘consciousness(viññāṇa)’ —the uninstructed worldling is unable to experience revulsion towards it, unable to become dispassionate towards it and be liberated from it."
- SN 12.61

>>13518341
if I were to guess
Buddhism is more accessible/easily understandable because at its core it deals with realizing the nature of immediate experience as it occurs (through practicing/developing clear awareness of moment-to-moment sensory experience), lots of emphasis on praxis, less on conceptual frameworks -
whereas Advaita has loads of abstract metaphysics and many people aren't interested in reading thousands of pages of metaphysics that may or may not be true representations of the nature of experiential reality

>>13517649
>From an Upanishadic perspective
You’re already on the wrong track

>>13518661
*therefore more people are probably gonna be attracted to Buddhism than Advaita due to that accessibility and difference

>>13518613
Nope. A Westerner who understands Plato, Pythagoras, Spengler, ancient European myth (examples only) will not be operating through this lens you are homogenising.

>>13518839
Also OP specifically said he’s coming from an Upanishadic perspective.

>>13517649
>Upanishadic
buddhists don't care for the upanishads

To the explicit deniers of the Self:

What claim, then, does Buddhism even have to Philosophy? Much like the Materialist refutes himself when really taken for his word, the Earth being small, for example, being utterly irrelevant if there really is no meaning, and me being perfectly justified in thinking it the center of the Universe; the Buddhist is likewise forced to accept a Self if only inasmuch as he is proselytizing, to have grounds on which and reason enough to do so. Otherwise I can say that the Buddha is wrong, and the Self is actually in the Boo-Bah-Dee-Da dimension or something, and he would have no reason or even means to disagree.

To the crypto-Catholics that neither deny nor affirm the Self:

>And so he dwells either in this world or in the resurrection or in the middle place. God forbid that I be found in there! In this world, there is good and evil. Its good things are not good, and its evil things not evil. But there is evil after this world which is truly evil - what is called "the middle". It is death.

>>13517649
"There is no self" is the single greatest fact that shatters a western man sense of reality and puts him into despair and nihilism, because our sense of self importance and ego narrative is at the core of our meaning formation processes and experience of reality. The Western man is the protagonist of his life, and "there is no self" is the recognition that his worldview is just an illusion

>>13518534
All the ideas people call buddhistic in advaita predate buddhism and are found in earlier hindu literature

>>13518551
remaining silent is not the same as saying there is no self you retard

>>13518340
that sounds like something that could happen to me
god im such a loser

>>13519121
>his worldview
>his

Whose?

>>13518850
Buddhists may think that they don't care for the Upanishads but Buddhism at its origin was largely just repeating and reworking themes and concepts already expressed in the pre-Buddhist Upanishads, the general concepts underlying the Four Noble Truths, Dependent Arising, the Noble Eightfold Path, and the Three Characteristics all appear in the pre-Buddhist Brihadaranyaka and Chandogya Upanishads and the early Vedas (pic related), its not mentioned in this pic but the pre-Buddhist Upanishads were recommending monasticism first too.

>>13517649
Do any Dharmicbros here know of credible literature detailing the nature of extrasensory abilities? I have been able to see energy throughout the air (and other visual phenomena, which I won't list for brevity) for about a year now, but I've scarcely read into relevant literature discussing experiences like this. I also believe it's genuine extrasensory perception, because I've had two optometrists verify my vision to be fine, and an MRI scan to confirm that my brain is too. What I'm seeing corresponds to fragmental accounts I've found of various internet resources, and also enhances proportional to my level of awareness - i.e if I deepen my state of consciousness, the phenomena simultaneously enhance in their intensity. On one night, after meditation, I perceived what I interpret as a literal, astral creature flying through my room and interacting with my chakras in some manner. It was barely perceptible by me, visible as a tiny wispy ethereal light. I still to this day have no clue what exactly it was, or what to make of the experience.

Do you know of any literature, or in-person resources (ex. might any Buddhist monks know?) which can help clarify these experiences to me? Do you imagine the sciences will ever verify and unravel these phenomena? They've verified a few, to my knowledge. Remote viewing, for example, which based Buddhism mentioned millenia ago.

It's not that I've become elated by this nor perceive it as a special power, but simply that I wish to understand it better, and to improve my ability to whatever degree possible. I've been a pretty untalented kid my whole life, and it feels kind of nice to now have something emerge resembling such. It feels like I'm beginning to figure out more of who I am, and hadn't previously realized myself to be.

I'm sorry this isn't the most relevant thread for this, but it's the only Eastern thread on the catalog, and I figure some people here might know a thing or two about what I'm asking for.

Lastly, just wanted to say that I have few contacts in real life whom I can speak to in real-time, so please don't be irritated if you see more posts from me in future threads - you guys are one of my only sources of live conversation. It's not that I'm trying to garner attention to myself, and become a familiar on here.

Blessings to all of you.

>>13517915
who's being liberated then and from what condition?

>>13517649
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FEnb2cFWKBs
best i could have found on the topic, unless you go back and learn the language and then take the texts before sects formed in buddhism, then you can make sense of it all. He has done both and understands the doctrine.

>>13519533
If there is less difference between Buddhism and Advaita than people imagine, it should hopefully bring less arguments between them too, since they disagree with eachother on less aspects than commonly held.

>>13517649
Bump.

>>13517649
Bump.

>>13519533
>all appear in the pre-Buddhist Brihadaranyaka
probably

>Chandogya Upanishads
not really

>early Vedas
hell no

>>13519745
OP here. I can’t answer your question, but I’ve had similar experiences.

>>13520493
That's awesome. I'd love if Dharma threads on here included discussions of such phenomena, since they are technically part of the scriptural teachings and therefore /lit/ material alongside that of /x/.

Trying to understand your true nature through words, ideas, and concepts is doomed to failure. You EXPERIENCE a sense of being a separate, static thing called a self. But it is only an emergent property of sensory perception that will not withstand scrutiny. Not intellectual scrutiny, but direct observation.

Understanding what the Buddhists are talking about requires EXPERIENCING the dissolution of that erroneous sense of a separate, static thing called a self into its component parts.

An excellent metaphor from the scriptures describes the butchering of an ox. At the beginning, it is perceived as an ox but at some point that perception changes and it becomes meat. So too observation initially reveals a thing called self but eventually the perception of a separate thing called self becomes a perception of a flowing, impermanent, unfixed process.

>>13518391
did this guy not learn anything from his study of the sutras

>>13523010
he read them in Pali, he knows way more about them than you and is way smarter than you pal

>>13523027
if he's so smart then how does he not realise that just because something came earlier that's not a proof of it being more nearer to truth

>>13523064
he doesn't say that in his video

>>13523073
certainly seems like he wants to
must be all that pent up abrahamic frustration how he calls it heresy in the end

>>13523115
nice projection

>>13519038
Show me where your self is right now.

>>13519038
I don't think Buddhists deny the self in the way you think they do. When they say there's no self they're saying we have no eternal essence or self sustaining substance, and they recognize this because of our observance of causality. If everything is interdependent as it appears, then there can't be anything self sustaining. This isn't to say they we don't exist in some sense, we obviously do. It's just that our existence is impermanent so they're not nihilists or absolute relativists, but they're not absolutists who say there is a black and a white, a right and a wrong either. They go for that Aristotelian middle.

That's how I understand them anyway.

They mean that it has no autonomous nature and that suffering comes from not knowing that the world is a hallucination.

>>13523141
>me

Who?

>>13523205
>and they recognize this because of our observance of causality. If everything is interdependent as it appears, then there can't be anything self sustaining.

By what Logic? Barely anyone argues for "negative" Monism, independence and permanence through preclusion of dependence and change. Rather, "positive" Monism, independence and permanence that allow for and subsume infinite dependence and change, precisely because they are inexhaustibly independent and permanent, is the argument of Advaita, Plato, Jesus, etc.

>>13525427
I don't know why you're asking for the logic because the reasoning is pretty clear. Everything appears to be interdependent, meaning everything we see existing relies on something else. Nothing that relies on something else to exist has existence as its essence because nothing that relies on something else can explain its own existence.

>>13519768
>i know more than the buddhists themselves who transmitted the text
doubt.jpg

>>13517898
From a buddhist perspective. There is no myself

>>13517649

"Now what is dependent co-arising? From birth as a requisite condition comes aging & death. Whether or not there is the arising of Tathagatas, this property stands — this regularity of the Dhamma, this orderliness of the Dhamma, this this/that conditionality. The Tathagata directly awakens to that, breaks through to that. Directly awakening & breaking through to that, he declares it, teaches it, describes it, sets it forth. He reveals it, explains it, makes it plain, & says, 'Look.' From birth as a requisite condition comes aging & death.

"From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth...

"From clinging/sustenance as a requisite condition comes becoming...

"From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging/sustenance...

"From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving...

"From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling...

"From the six sense media as a requisite condition comes contact...

"From name-&-form as a requisite condition come the six sense media...

"From consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-&-form...

"From fabrications as a requisite condition comes consciousness...

"From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications. Whether or not there is the arising of Tathagatas, this property stands — this regularity of the Dhamma, this orderliness of the Dhamma, this this/that conditionality. The Tathagata directly awakens to that, breaks through to that. Directly awakening & breaking through to that, he declares it, teaches it, describes it, sets it forth. He reveals it, explains it, makes it plain, & says, 'Look.' From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications. What's there in this way is a reality, not an unreality, not other than what it seems, conditioned by this/that. This is called dependent co-arising.

"And what are dependently co-arisen phenomena? Aging & death are dependently co-arisen phenomena: inconstant, compounded, dependently co-arisen, subject to ending, subject to passing away, subject to fading, subject to cessation.

"Birth is a dependently co-arisen phenomenon...

"Becoming is a dependently co-arisen phenomenon...

"Clinging/sustenance is a dependently co-arisen phenomenon...

"Craving is a dependently co-arisen phenomenon...

"Feeling is a dependently co-arisen phenomenon...

"Contact is a dependently co-arisen phenomenon...

"The six sense media are dependently co-arisen phenomena...

"Name-&-form is a dependently co-arisen phenomenon...

"Consciousness is a dependently co-arisen phenomenon...

"Fabrications are dependently co-arisen phenomena...

"Ignorance is a dependently co-arisen phenomenon: inconstant, compounded, dependently co-arisen, subject to ending, subject to passing away, subject to fading, subject to cessation. These are called dependently co-arisen phenomena.

>>13525659
"When a disciple of the noble ones has seen well with right discernment this dependent co-arising & these dependently co-arisen phenomena as they have come to be, it is not possible that he would run after the past, thinking, 'Was I in the past? Was I not in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having been what, what was I in the past?' or that he would run after the future, thinking, 'Shall I be in the future? Shall I not be in the future? What shall I be in the future? How shall I be in the future? Having been what, what shall I be in the future?' or that he would be inwardly perplexed about the immediate present, thinking, 'Am I? Am I not? What am I? How am I? Where has this being come from? Where is it bound?' Such a thing is not possible. Why is that? Because the disciple of the noble ones has seen well with right discernment this dependent co-arising & these dependently co-arisen phenomena as they have come to be."

REMINDER THAT ALL THE BRAINLETS JAINS, HINDUS and Advaita Vedantins ARE SEETHING AS SOON AS THEY HEAR THAT AHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA

>>13525663
Lol, the Buddhist Redditor reveals himself by how he posts like a 15 year old hopped up on mountain dew. How would what you posted in any way make Advaitins or Jains seethe? You just posted some lines of Buddha saying that things dependently arise, but Jains, Advaitins and other Hindus don't accept Buddha and his words as scriptural or as otherwise valid sources of doctrine. Why would that make them seethe when they don't take it seriously? Buddha doesn't prove anything in that text you posted but just states his views which non-Buddhists don't care about or attribute any importance to.That's like me posting Upanishad lines saying the Atma exists and then writing BUDDHISTS SEETHING HAHAHAA in all caps like a teenager. Dependent arising as the cause of existence/samsara is complete nonsense btw and has been BTFO by better thinkers, there is a reason that Madhyamaka rejects it as an actual literal explanation for the cause of Samsara. Buddhism has no explanation for why samsara and the world exist unless you take dependent arising as literal which is retarded and looks like shit in comparison to Vedanta.

>>13525519
You are dodging his central point which is that infinite dependence and change are not mutually exclusive with permanence, real existence, infinite existence etc. You clowns fall into these mental traps of uncritically accepting "dude everything is interdependent which means not real or something" but dont stop to consider there are many feasible alternative viewpoints regarding such things but then when people bring them up you plug your ears because you don't want to face the fact that the position you take is not the natural conclusion but is in fact dogmatic and subjective.
> Everything appears to be interdependent, meaning everything we see existing relies on something else.
>Nothing that relies on something else to exist has existence as its essence because nothing that relies on something else can explain its own existence.
Yes, but that logic points to everything being predicated on and sustained by something which is real and existent (i.e. Brahman etc). Illusions which have no inherent existence cannot mutually arise and be witnessed by a consciousness which itself isn't real, that's nonsensical garbage. The key mistake you are making is taking the Buddhist description of the phenomenology of how mental experiences condition one another and then trying to apply it as an ontological model which always ends up becoming total shit and a laughingstock that's easily debunked by Vedantists et al.

>>13525845
>es, but that logic points to everything being predicated on and sustained by something which is real and existent (i.e. Brahman etc). Illusions which have no inherent existence cannot mutually arise and be witnessed by a consciousness which itself isn't real, that's nonsensical garbage.
Get a load of this puthujjana
>There MUST be something real! I must be real for anything to exist!

>>13525968
Ad hominems like puthujjana are not a substitution for an argument pal. The Buddhist model (as you understand it) is hopelessly contradictory garbage. That we are conscious of being living beings is proof that there is some extent reality underlying everything even if the phenomenal world is unreal, the Buddhist utterly fails at debunking this. If everything was unreal it wouldn't be experienced as illusion, there being no 'real' basis upon which the subjective experience of consciousnesses could occur. Illusions such as mirages have no conscious experience, true illusions are not self-aware and self-illuminating like human beings are. There are no examples of illusions arising on nothing or without cause but all of the analogies one can point to all involve an existent substrate for that illusion existing first via a rope being seen as a snake, a wooden post or stump appearing as a man, the head-induced distortion of air/light causing a mirage on the ground, an existent sound being mistaken as someone calling your name etc and so on. Dreams need to have an existing dreamer to be experienced. Every experience and analogy that one can draw upon all btfo's your position, which you never proved or offered evidence for to begin with other than muh b-buddhist doctrine which is not an argument.

>>13519533
The Simile of the Fire which the Buddha describes contains no such "merging" with the unconditioned. The Fire (representing the being trapped in Samsara, burning with ignorance as the fuel) does not merge or unite with the unconditioned, it just ceases with no more fuel to burn. The descriptions of the Unconditioned in Advaita are tremendously different that Buddhism's descriptions

>>13525845
Not him btw but
>there is a reason that Madhyamaka rejects it as an actual literal explanation for the cause of Samsara
It also isn't really implied that it is a literal metaphysical cause in the Pali Canon either, since whenever the Buddha is asked about when and how Samsara/existence begun he says it is without discernible beginning and to try and figure that out firsthand would be fruitless. Dependent arising is only ever described as the interlinked causes for further becoming - as in the reason why a being continues to transmigrate instead of realizing Nirvana.
It's also a shame how some others attacking Advaita and defending Buddhism type on this board - but I think it's no coincidence that the more they actually know about Buddhism, they more well-spoken they are, and that the ones who think emptiness means "nothing exists" or that anatta means "there categorically is no self" are the most vicious.

>>13525528
very stupid. If oral transmission would secure the dhamma, the dhamma would have been never lost, it would never change.
But well, didnt the buddha himself say, that the dhamma will be lost etc.?
How can that happen with all these dedicated monks practicing oral transmission?
Go to the fountain not the puddle

>>13526033
>The Simile of the Fire which the Buddha describes contains no such "merging" with the unconditioned.
That's an incorrect equivalence because that passage is describing the unconditioned and attributeless Atma merging with Brahman, not the psycho-physical aggregate (which corresponds to the flame you mentioned) which Buddhism and the Upanishads both teach dis-identification with. The extent to which the latter "merges" in Brahman would be only such that it falls away and is revealed as ultimately unreal while the Atma which was illuminating it (and which was identified with it because of ignorance) is the actual thing that merges, with merging being figurative as it was identical with Brahman all along.
>The descriptions of the Unconditioned in Advaita are tremendously different that Buddhism's descriptions
Yes and no, they both describe it as unconditoned, unborn, free from change etc. Even so, the point of that post was not to claim that it's the same thing but it was pointing out that despite hin describing it differently, it's within the context of a metaphysical system or a blueprint of liberation that already appears first in the early Upanishads.

>>13517649
I'm more or less pulling this out of my ass, but simply put there is no 'self' in the sense of the you who wants things, is afraid of losing things, wants to understand and affirm itself, and is afraid of not being. None of the constituents that 'you' are made of, whether material, mental, or spiritual, are uniquely or permanently 'you'.

On the other hand there obviously is something, and that something considers itself when you do, though it will quickly discern that it is not identical with any single part of itself, and that there is no clear moment when it arose, nor is there one when it will end.

Experiencing this realization will typically stop you from obsessing over stuff and let you feel that everything is alright, always has been, and always will be, and that you are that

It is not really a denial of anything

>>13526349
>psycho-physical aggregate (which corresponds to the flame you mentioned)
How does the psycho-physical aggregate correspond to the fire in the simile of fire? Are you under the impression that the fire going out is equivalent to the death of an Arahant - the passing away of their psycho-physical form?
Ignorance is burned up and Nirvana is realized to its fullest extent here-&-now during the Arahant's life. The fire going out is the cessation here and now of the influxes (craving for existence, attachment, objectification, subject-object duality, ignorance) which are the fuel for the burning, it does not represent the death of a liberated one. The fire had already gone out before their death.

>>13525845
>BTFO by better thinkers,
the only thing thinkers do is speculate and seethe while writing their useless books

>>13526025
>That we are conscious of being living beings is proof that there is some extent reality underlying everything even if the phenomenal world is unreal, the Buddhist utterly fails at debunking this.
Why Buddhism would try to refute baseless assumptions?
>true illusions are not self-aware and self-illuminating like human beings are
Prove that consciousness is uncaused first.
>There are no examples of illusions arising on nothing or without cause
Advaita Vedanta's answer to 'where does it all come from?' doesn't sound satisfactory.
>Dreams need to have an existing dreamer to be experienced. Every experience and analogy that one can draw upon all btfo's your position
Drawing cases from 'unreal' world to prove your point? Is this the pinnacle of Indian thought?

>>13525519

Neither does everything appear to be interdependent, nor would that mean that everything we see exist is actually interdependent, nor does everything we see exist can be affirmed as everything that does actually exists, nor would the interdependent inference thereof be Logically sound. Semiosis, for example, depends on nothing but itself.

>>13526539
>Advaita Vedanta's answer to 'where does it all come from?' doesn't sound satisfactory.
I think this is the basis of the entire Buddhist vs Advaita rivalry on this board. Vedantins assert Advaita is superior because it provides "satisfactory" metaphysics to explain existence which Buddhism does not offer (ie Brahman, Brahman Saguna) while Buddhism on the other hand is not metaphysical, but exclusively phenomenological.
Sure logically, a beginningless/eternal Supreme Being sounds nice to explain the origins of the aimless wandering of Samsara which the Buddha said is without discernible origin/fruitless to try to discover firsthand, but you're talking out of your ass if you're trying to tell me that this Supreme Being/Brahman Saguna has any basis whatsoever in immediate phenomenology and is not just abstract conjecture.

>>13526603
You legitimately type like a retard

>>13526659
I'm unfamiliar with both doctrines. As someone who believes
1) consciousness to an eternal substance, the ground and principle of Existence itself, and therefore beginningless, with reality being idealist in nature and therefore there not being a "natural universe" and then "natural lifeforms" inhabiting it, but the beings themselves to be in union with the universe, their consciousness having always been here and the universe not being something preceding it. The most fundamental dimension of us, what truly constitutes us above anything else we are, which is all-pervasive in a panpsychic sense
2) one's state of mind reflects the stage of reality inhabited, with higher states incarnating in higher species and planes, and vice versa
3) a similarly uncaused, beginningless system of causality, involving an unstoppable series of causes which engender further causes corresponding to the nature of the original one
4) Platonic Forms, transcendent and eternal, which underpin reality and which our minds are epistomologically connected to, hence our knowledge of them, inhabiting a realm of them prior to our present incarnations. These include the Good, Beautiful, Just, Truth, etc
5) The universe itself could be considered a Supreme Force/Being/etc, which everything inside exists in the image of. Essentially concepts like: The One is everyone, and every one is the One. All is One, One is in All. As above, so below - as the universe, so the soul.
6) No single Creator-God, since consciousness and other dimensions are uncreated, but the biological lifeforms in our physical shade of the universe were created by one or more higher-dimensional species, who are not themselves biological. But aside from this, a singular consciousness is what everything constitutes.

What do I believe? Is this Advaita, Buddhism or both? Any contradictions in my views?

>The human person is made up of the experience of embodiedness (rupa) mixed with the feeling-tone (vedana) of that experience, the contents of which are associated/identified by conception/perception (samjña), which conditions volition and volitional dispositions (samskara) which taken all together form our consciousness (vijñana). What else is there to the person than this?
So... What the fuck achieves Nirvana?

>>13526539
>Why Buddhism would try to refute baseless assumptions?
If you want to uncritically accept things simply because Buddha says them, then that's your prerogative; however if you want to dictate a claim to non-Buddhists "i.e. there is no reality underlying anything", it remains up to you to prove it. If you want to dispute with the Vedanist view and claim that there is no reality then it is your responsibility to offer logic or other evidence for that claim, especially if you want to put on pretensions of Buddhism being supported by logic. You are making the mistake of acting like Buddhism is a normative position that needs no justification but really in saying there is no reality you are making an unsubstantiated claim that goes against the normative position of most people Vedantist or not.
>Prove that consciousness is uncaused first.
Here you are trying to dodge addressing the central hole in your claims by distracting and pivoting to another topic. The Vedantist has no need to prove to you that consciousness is uncaused. If you are unable to offer good arguments for consciousness being unreal/illusionary then that's an indication of it being an incorrect doctrine/tenet. You can either answer this point or concede that you don't have an argument, trying to distract by changing the discussion is just an unsuccessful attempt to avoid the later option
>Advaita Vedanta's answer to 'where does it all come from?' doesn't sound satisfactory.
It's much more satisfactory than dependent-origination, which as other anons have noted was not even meant to be an explanation for the existence of samsara in the first place (in reality, Buddha didn't have an answer to give people for this), dependent-origination has all these holes in it that are illogical (see pic related), there is no explanation for how it could exist and proceed in an orderly fashion without an exterior organizing influence etc etc, both Nagarjuna and Advaitins in their works BTFO beginningless cause-and-effect as an explanation for samsara/existence. Maya being a power of the Lord does not have any of the flaws dependent-origination has and explains all of the impossibly intricate order and harmony that appears to us.
>Drawing cases from 'unreal' world to prove your point?
The Buddhist who presumes to use logic is just as guilty of this if not more via him denying any reality. In any case this is stupid since the Advaita does not say everything is unreal but that phenomenal existence is an illusion which takes place within the existent real, hence those examples and analogies still hold true as they involve the real (the conscious witness)
>Is this the pinnacle of Indian thought?
Are you trying to make yourself look retarded? Buddha and many important Buddhist thinkers were Indian. Later east-Asian Mahayana is heavily predicated on Indian Madhyamaka/Yogachara thought, Chan was originally called the Lankavatara school named after the Indian-composed text etc

>>13526948
Nirvana isn't achieved, it's not a farther shore or heaven out there that one reaches and attains. Nirvana is realized. Nirvana is perception of experience as it is without any delusions, cravings, obscurations. Nirvana is an ever-present truth, one just has to realize it by dropping false perceptions through careful and critical examination of immediate conscious experience.

>>13526457
nice cope, and that's wrong anyways since the thinkers I was talking about were renunciant monastics who attained liberation and bliss

>>13526969
Yeah yeah but what? Sounds like Buddhists are just materialists that want to cease rebirth which if you're a materialist means just the end of everything.

>>13526932
your ideas are much closer to Advaita

>>13526982
>Sounds like Buddhists are just materialists that want to cease rebirth which if you're a materialist means just the end of everything.
How can a materialist believe in rebirth, siddhis, devas, Brahmas, and of course the absence of objectification?
Nirvana is both the realization of experiential reality as it is, and the literal end of rebirth.

>>13526932
(4) and (5) is the reason why you are Advaita guy

>>13526995
>How can a materialist believe in rebirth, siddhis, devas, Brahmas, and of course the absence of objectification?
Apparently he can. Spiritual materialism..

You still haven't explained why just a bunch of aggregates should like to stop conditioning new aggregates.
>b-but muh never ending suffering
Not really. My suffering will apparently cease to be when I die so wtf do I care if a bunch of bumping particles suffer after i'm gone?

>>13517649
>are they outright rejecting Atman
yes they are

>>13527048
>My suffering will apparently cease to be when I die
Who implied that at all?
>>13527048
>so wtf do I care if a bunch of bumping particles suffer after i'm gone?
Who here is implying that a person's being is made up exclusively of material parts/particles?

>>13517649
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WKqO16mkGE

>>13527048
Buddhism is not materialist, it's idealist. The cosmology literally equates mental states to realms of existence, such that higher mental states correspond literally to higher planes of being, and higher species on those planes. Nothing remotely "materialist" here.

>>13527059
God Buddhists are so fucking annoying to deal with. They're incapable of carrying on a conversation. Constant pretending to have "no view" probably fries their brains.

At least the Advaita guy have the ability to form arguments.

>>13527087
Those were serious questions though: you are suddenly assuming that you're talking to a materialist when you're not.
Fyi, none of what the Buddhists say is not-self would be rejected by a Advaitan. They too would call the Five Aggregates, the psycho-physical, not-self. Even Advaitans will say the process of reincarnation is not Ultimately real, that the Atman is not some individual ghostly spirit person that reappears in different bodies over time.
You care if there will be suffering in the future because the "you" of the next life is no less "you" than the person you were a year ago. There isn't some massive cutoff at death where it is a different person entirely, the continuation is essentially of the same nature as the way you continue to exist now from moment-to-moment. Except at death in many cases you will lose memory of the previous life due to the traumatic process of death, growth in the womb and birth (although canonically in some realms of rebirth such as the Deva realm, beings remember their past life since they aren't reborn through a womb).

>>13527123
>different person entirely
*rather this should say "different being"
Obviously from life to life your conventional identity changes with your body...etc.
There is a continuity though in the same way as there is continuity in your process of becoming in this life.

>>13526986
>>13527036
Can I follow both, so long as I know where one position is not found in the other, and vice versa?

Because I genuinely find both of them to be highly illuminating from the outside, but also individually lacking. Buddhism has no integration of a universal entity which Advaita aims for, and my belief is that our species only has a concept of the "All" or "Whole" and creates religious systems based around such a concept because there indeed exists some kind of entity (I say entity to mean anything, be it a being or force or principle or whatever, it might not even be something human minds can know of, since our speech of the universe is limited to what has been encountered by us ex. Just as a flower would see the Supreme as a giant Flower, and humans see it as a giant Mind or so forth) which all of us are of, and in, and connected to, and therefore grasping after. Buddhism's individualistic nature is in my opinion a failure to recognize this aspect, namely the fact of everything having to be fashioned by a singular entity, and that entity needing to be unfashioned by anything else, resulting in a state of macrocosmic-microcosmic unity and ontological oneness which Advaita's ocean-droplet analogies aptly capture.

I'm also trying to integrate a spiritual philosophy with those of the natural sciences, which are themselves still quite unsure of what "the Universe" is as a whole, and the previous view of it being a kind of Newtonian machine starting to shift in the light of doctrines like pansychism, but it ultimately unclear of the answer regardless. There are cool pictures of galaxy-cluster networks which highly resemble a cell in our brain, and the other neat similarities on the micro and macro scales which may or may not provide reason to suggest the earlier notions to be true, but I'm certainly not saying so. That said, it's something which every group, spiritual or scientific, is concerned with unravelling.

>>13527123
Thanks for a decent answer.

Yes I know Advaitins basically agree phenomenologically with Buddhists but they consider that to be Maya and they also believe in Being that transcends that. Which clearly makes them non-materialists. If anything they're complete anti-materialists since it is ultimately negated.
>Who here is implying that a person's being is made up exclusively of material parts/particles?
How can there be anything else? If there is anything else then it is just states of becoming anyway that is conditioned on the aggregates(materia) which really means its even less real than the materia they're contingent on, like a mirage in the desert or whatever.

Rebirth just seems like nothing but saying that cause and effect transcends death, which i'm guessing most atheist materialists would agree with.

>>13527233
Jonang school of Tibetan Buddhism are Buddhists that basically believes in Atman/Brahman.

>>13527238
lel didn't mean to say "decent answer". Sounds really passive aggressive.

>>13527238
>Rebirth just seems like nothing but saying that cause and effect transcends death
Rebirth in Buddhism is phenomenological for the most part and not really metaphysical. The cause and effect which propels rebirth is entirely mental - karma as a whole is actually a mental process.
The first Dhammapada verse states that
>"Mind is the forerunner of all things"
Actions and volition condition one's mind and the nature of its arising in the future. This is obvious in everyday life, in the way that criminals tend to be miserable, paranoid, chaotic, far from peaceful mentally, and kind/generous people tend to be the happiest most peaceful types you'll meet.
This conditioning of mental states through actions/karma continues after death. Experience (with rebirth) arises in a manner that matches the being's mental state which has been conditioned according to their karma.
Buddhism is ALMOST idealistic in that experience of reality is taken to be a fundamentally mental phenomenon, but it is not idealism because consciousness is only the 3rd link to dependent-arising and so it cannot be considered the ultimate creative substantial ground for reality to arise from.

>>13527284
>Sounds really passive aggressive.
didn't come across that way at all my guy

>>13527259
What makes them Buddhists if they believe in those things?

>>13527370
there are schools of Buddhism that can be called crypto-Hinduism and schools of Hinduism that can be called crypto-Buddhism
just the way these things developed over time

>>13527384
Which Hindu schools are crypto-Buddhism?

>>13527370
It isn't clear what the Buddha meant by anatta. Some people like the bald guy that gets posted here all the time says that the Buddha didn't say there is no self(anatta). The Buddha always just said what wasn't the self, which doesn't mean there is no self.

If he really believed there is no self then why not just come out and just say "there is no self/soul" and be done with it? Instead he kept saying what isn't a self and usually when someone says what isn't a specific thing that usually means that there there at least exists such a thing but that it isn't this or that. Otherwise what is the point?

>>13527370
>>13527518
The Buddha was asked point blank a few times whether there is or isn't a self, and he refused to take a stance on this topic:
>>13518055
>>13518197
Some people take it to mean that there is a self and he was pointing out via negativa what is the Self. Some people take it to mean that there is no self at all and that such an idea should be outright denied.
I think the fairest interpretation is that the Buddha was not affirming nor denying the self, especially in light of certain passages from the Pali Canon:

>"Like the flame thrown out by the force of the wind
>Reaches its end, it cannot be reckoned.""
- Snp 5.6

"This anguished world, fully given to contact,
Speaks of a disease as self.
In whatever terms it conceives of,
Even thereby it turns otherwise.
The world, attached to becoming,Given fully to becoming,
Though becoming otherwise, Yet delights in becoming.
What it delights in is a fear
What it fears from is a suffering.
But then this holy life is lived for the abandoning of that very becoming."
- Ud 3

"This world, Kaccàyana, usually bases (its views) on two things: on
existence and non-existence. Now, he who with right insight sees the
arising of the world as it really is, does not hold with the nonexistence of the world. And he who with right insight sees the
passing away of the world as it really is, does not hold with the
existence of the world.

The world, for the most part, is given to
approaching, grasping, entering into and getting entangled (as
regards views). Whoever does not approach, grasp and take his stand
upon that proclivity towards approaching and grasping, that mental
standpoint - namely, the thought: 'This is my soul' - he knows that
what arises is just suffering and what ceases is just suffering. Thus
he is not in doubt, is not perplexed and herein he has knowledge that
is not dependent on another. Thus far, Kaccàyana, he has right view.
'Everything exists,' this is one extreme. 'Nothing exists,' this is the
other extreme. Not approaching either of those extremes, the
Tathàgata teaches the Dhamma by the middle way: From ignorance
as condition formations come to be; from formations as condition
consciousness comes to be . . . Such is the arising of this entire mass
of suffering. From the complete fading away and cessation of that
very ignorance, there comes to be the cessation of formations; from
the cessation of formations, the cessation of consciousness . . . . .
Such is the cessation of this entire mass of suffering."
- AN 2.12.15

>>13527551
"...""What do you think: Do you regard the Tathagata as form-feeling-perception-fabrications-consciousness?""

""No, lord.""

""Do you regard the Tathagata as that which is without form, without feeling, without perception, without fabrications, without consciousness?""

""No, lord.""

""And so, Anuradha — when you can't pin down the Tathagata as a truth or reality even in the present life — is it proper for you to declare, 'Friends, the Tathagata — the supreme man, the superlative man, attainer of the superlative attainment — being described, is described otherwise than with these four positions: The Tathagata exists after death, does not exist after death, both does & does not exist after death, neither exists nor does not exist after death'?""

""No, lord.""...

""Very good, Anuradha. Very good. Both formerly & now, it is only stress that I describe, and the cessation of stress.""

- SN 22.86"

"Thus, monks, a Tathàgata does not conceive of a visible thing as apart from sight; he does not conceive of an unseen; he
does not conceive of a 'thing-worth-seeing'; he does not conceive
about a seer.
He does not conceive of an audible thing as apart from hearing;
he does not conceive of an unheard; he does not conceive of a
'thing-worth-hearing'; he does not conceive about a hearer.
He does not conceive of a thing to be sensed as apart from
sensation; he does not conceive of an unsensed; he does not
conceive of a 'thing-worth-sensing'; he does not conceive about one
who senses.
He does not conceive of a cognizable thing as apart from
cognition; he does not conceive of an uncognized; he does not
conceive of a 'thing-worth-cognizing'; he does not conceive about
one who cognizes
- AN 4.24"

>>13527370
Because they claim that their teaching is the truth of Buddha's teachings all along, that this is demonstrated in the most important Buddhist texts both Sutta and Tantra, and furthermore that many of the most important earlier Buddhist thinkers and commentators all agreed with Jonang and had the same view, but were largely misunderstood until Jonang and in particular Dolpopa came along.

Dol-bo-ba recognizes that the middle wheel of doctrine teaches that even the ultimate does not ultimately exist and that Nagarjuna's Collections of Reasonings present the view that all existents including the ultimate are, in the perspective of their final nature, as unfounded as a sky-flower, the horns of a rabbit, and the child of a barren woman (199). However, he explains away these teachings of the self-emptiness of the ultimate as techniques for developing non-conceptual meditation at a certain level of practice (205). Thus, although self-emptiness does not fulfill the role of the actual ultimate, it has a place in spiritual development as a means to temporarily reduce the
force of coarser levels of afflictive emotions. The middle wheel of doctrine requires interpretation both because of its lack of clarity on what does and does not ultimately exist and because it overstates the doctrine of self-emptiness when it extends this to the ultimate by declaring it to be without ultimate existence. The middle wheel's blanket teaching of emptiness does not take into account that the ultimate ultimately exists (206), whereas the third wheel dearly differentiates what does and does not ultimately exist, and thus is distinctly superior (202). It dearly teaches an ultimately existent "other-emptiness"-that is, a thoroughly established nature empty of imputational natures and other-powered natures and hence the third wheel is definitive, whereas the middle wheel does not clearly teach the actual mode of subsistence of phenomena. The
third wheel teaches directly and clearly, whereas the other two wheels teach obliquely by way of intentional speech (394).

>>13527600
"Dol-bo-ba focuses on demonstrating that for most of the prominent scriptures of the great vehicle as well as their leading commentators the final object of meditation for purifying obstructions is the matrix-of-one-gone-thus, endowed with ultimate buddha qualities and ultimately existent. He finds teachings compatible with the great middle way throughout a host of sutras, citing a wide range of texts.

Dol-bo~ba quotes a plethora of commentarial authors, often using the term "great middle" to emphasize that their final system is that of'the great middle way. He shows that Nagarjuna in his Collections of Praises and so forth asserts such a matrix-of-one-gone-thus (102), and demonstrates the same for Nagarjuna's renowned followers-Aryadeva (106), Bhavaviveka (105), and even Chandrakirti (106). Chandraki:rti is a problem ~because he explicitly refutes a matrix-of-one-gone-thus endowed with buddha-qualities in his Supplement to (Nagarjuna s) "Treatise on the Middle," but Dol-bo-ba explains away those objections as confined to opinions earlier in his life and even cites contrary evidence in the Supplement. He also demonstrates how figures often categorized as proponents of mind-only-Maitreya-(221, 235), Asanga (245), and Vasubandhu (235)-actually are, in their final thought, proponents of the great middle and assert other-emptiness. For instance, he points out that even Asanga's Summary of the Great Vehicle speaks of a reality beyond mind (244). His scope is illustrated by a list of the authors and
texts of sutra treatises and commentaries that he cites"

>>13527551
>and he refused to take a stance on this topic

See: >>13519038

>>13526207
he also said change the dharma as you see fit
buddha is not the fountain it's just your abrahamic way of thinking fucking with you

>>13528598
>he also said change the dharma as you see fit
source?

>>13528566
Why'd the Buddah refuse to take a stance on the existence of the self?
What's his endgame?

>>13527123
>the process of reincarnation is not Ultimately real, that the Atman is not some individual ghostly spirit person that reappears in different bodies over time.
>traumatic process of death, growth in the womb and birth
so what is rebirth then

>>13528775
In Buddhism, rebirth is a process of becoming like a fire that continues to burn because there is still fuel (grasping, craving mixed with karma/volitional actions) allowing it to.

>>13528775

>>13528725
Affirming or denying the existence of the self in some sort of ontological sense would mean engaging in dogmatic metaphysics. The Buddha strictly avoided any such substantialist or metaphysical teachings, he exclusively concerned himself with phenomenology.
The Buddha denied that there was a self within the entire realm of experience.
>All dharmas are not-self
Even Nirvana was said to be not-self.
To assert or deny the existence of a self outside of the realm of experience is not what the Buddha was in the business of doing.
>The Exalted One was once staying near Sāvatthī, at Jeta Grove, in Anāthapiṇḍika's, Park.

>Then the Exalted One addressed the brethren, saying:

>"Brethren."

>"Lord," responded those brethren to the Exalted One.

>The Exalted One said:

>"Brethren, I will teach you the all.

>Do you listen to it.

>And what, Brethren, is the all?

>It is eye and object,
>ear and sound,
>nose and scent,
>tongue and savour,
>body and things tangible,
>mind and mind-states.

>That, Brethren, is called 'the all.'

>Whoso, Brethren, should say:

>'Rejecting this all,
>I will proclaim another all, -
>it would be mere talk[2] on his part,
>and when questioned
>he could not make good his boast,
>and further would come to an ill pass.

>Why so?

>Because, Brethren, it would be beyond his scope[3] to do so.'
- SN 35.23
The Buddha taught the absence of objectification, as described here:
>>13527557
>"Thus, monks, a Tathàgata does not conceive of a visible thing as apart from sight; he does not conceive of an unseen; he
>does not conceive of a 'thing-worth-seeing'; he does not conceive
>about a seer.
>He does not conceive of an audible thing as apart from hearing;
>he does not conceive of an unheard; he does not conceive of a
>'thing-worth-hearing'; he does not conceive about a hearer.
>He does not conceive of a thing to be sensed as apart from
>sensation; he does not conceive of an unsensed; he does not
>conceive of a 'thing-worth-sensing'; he does not conceive about one
>who senses.
>He does not conceive of a cognizable thing as apart from
>cognition; he does not conceive of an uncognized; he does not
>conceive of a 'thing-worth-cognizing'; he does not conceive about
>one who cognizes
>- AN 4.24"

>>13528814
i thought the fire example was just to demonstrate cause and effect
how do you become like fire, it says mind and matter
after all we do see buddhas and avataras in body form

>>13528878
Avataras are not a thing in Buddhism. If you want to learn of the Hindu perspective on reincarnation in detail you'll have to wait for one of them to answer you.
And yes we do see Buddhas in body form. Siddhartha Gautama was a human man who walked and taught in India 2500 years ago.
The fire example is great because it illustrates the becoming/burning/process aspect of a being as well as the lack of inherent independent existence/non-existence due to the being (fire) only being there dependent on the requisite conditions/fuel.
Once the fuel is gone/finished and the fire goes out, you can't say it went anywhere or talk of its state. All you know is that it stopped burning.

>>13528878
>i thought the fire example was just to demonstrate cause and effect
Also the cause-and-effect system of karma is inextricably linked to rebirth as explained here:
>>13527339

>>13528878
>how do you become like fire, it says mind and matter
also sorry for multi-post but the Fire Simile is just that, a simile.
The mind-and-matter [poor translation, should say name-and-form:
>Feeling, perception, intention, contact, >attention - these O
>friends, are called `name'. The four great >elements and form
>dependent on them - these, O friends, are >called `form'."
- MN 9 ]
is referring to the experiential/psychological firsthand aspect of what is reborn. The Fire Simile deals with the cause-and-effect propelling it.
You could probably say that the fuel allowing for the burning deals with the becoming/karmic process of rebirth ("karmic seeds for becoming" and all", and the resulting appearance of the fire can be equated to name-and-form.

>>13528917
so a physical beings mental tenancies sculpted as a result of his actions in the material form give rise to another physical being after death in circumstances ideal to his mental tenancies ?
my question wasn't about the nature of consciousness just weather or not rebirths happen in material form

>>13528960
you can be reborn in immaterial worlds too as a Deva (heavenly being), a god, or lower realms such as the hungry ghost realms.
But yea you are basically spot on with
>mental tenancies sculpted as a result of his actions in the material form give rise to another physical being after death in circumstances ideal to his mental tenancies
Rebirth corresponds to the state of one's mind which is conditioned by volitional actions.

>>13524825
Show the self right now.

>>13528984
They're gonna say consciousness, probably.
Reminder of course that consciousness is dependent on name-and-form, as name-and-form is dependent on consciousness.
The phenomenal subject is only experienced insofar as it has an object to perceive. The subject is never perceived as independent of the object.
There is observably
>Eye consciousness and sight
>Ear consciousness and sound
>Nose consciousness and smell
>Tongue consciousness and taste
>Body consciousness and feeling
>Mind consciousness and the cognized (thoughts, mind-states..etc)
Each type of consciousness is never experienced separately from its respective object, and to assert otherwise is conjecture.
With the cessation of consciousness is the cessation of name-and-form.
With the cessation of name-and-form is the cessation of consciousness.
When the subject goes, so does the object.
When the object goes, so does the subject.

>>13528979
how do you even fathom immaterial worlds? does a being's mind give rise to them or are they ever present?
what happens to conservation of mass and shit

>>13529067
All realms of rebirth are experientially mind-wrought afaik, but as mentioned before mind is not fundamental metaphysically since it is experienced only in relation to other things (mind-objects which themselves are experienced as being produced based on sense impressions/sense experiences) and not as something with independent inherent existence.
I have no idea what happens to the conservation of mass but that's a funny question. Perhaps you could one day develop the ability to recollect past lives, remember one from a deva-world and see how things compare to this material human world.

>>13519762
Buddhists argue we are made up of past lives and past karma and that is what we want to undo. The self doesn’t stay the same from one moment to the next. Impermanence is the key. Everything is always changing and flowing. There is nothing to be attached to. It is best to create within oneself a self that rejects the self, that says material things are useless. The goal is to stop rebirth.

>>13528866
How is it that Buddhists can pay reverence to deities if this is outside the scope of Buddhism? Would not the Buddha say that it is not worth occupying time with an impermanent god?

>inb4 I am looking at this through a Western lens
There are Buddhist sects that actively worship gods. Are these aberrant? Are they worshiping those gods in the same way that they eat food - as a means to sustain the physical ie. they as people haven’t thrown off a shackle?

>>13529022

This is a meaningless argument since the "Objective" abounds in any and all permutations, and is just as incontinent in permutations wherefrom one could think one's self might have emerged, like the body or the ground, as it is in permutations which one could think as one's own exclusively, like dreams or the colors and shapes seen when closing one's eyes. By your Logic, and this is revelatory of the bad faith and trickery or "interdependence", you could just as easily think of either the former or the latter as the "middle" between the other one and the Self. Curious, or rather, not at all.

By parsimony alone, I would rather think their only common denominator, me, as their cause. And I myself rebuke interdependence, indeed, by Phenomenology alone: I am never thought of by anything as I think of it. True interdependence would mean one could somehow inquire into a random "Object", a stone, and bring a trace of me out of it, just as I can bring forth traces of it.

>>13528598
No. The dhamma is eternal. He said that monks can change the Pāṭimokkha (monastic rules), not the dhamma.
Very bad understanding of the dhamma, i must say.
And just look, how the theravadins did not change a single rule of the Pāṭimokkha that was given by the buddha, as they could not agree on which rules were important and which were not important. Do not make the mistake of giving the sheep the attributes of the shepherd.

>>13529500
who is stopping the process of rebirth, who is being liberated? If there is nothing to be liberated, why even care about attaining nirwana or nibbana?

>It is best to create within oneself a self that rejects the self, that says material things are useless

Atman can not be seen via the senses, because all the senses work in atman.

Brahmayana is what the buddha called his teachings, not buddhism. Buddhists are not practicing brahmayana.

>>13531552
>Brahmayana is what the buddha called his teachings, not buddhism. Buddhists are not practicing brahmayana.

very esoteric, what are you reading

>>13531627
normie buddhist stuff -> puredhamma.net -> theoria apophasis.
Wheelers series where he was slim is clearly right, anatta being not the no soul, buddhists are trying to understand a very simple system from wrong view. There were aharant children in the time of the buddha, now the monks just preach and preach, basically the same thing that the buddha gotama revolted against, mindless meditation only for the ritual.
If you do not learn pali you can not expect to understand the teachings.

>>13531381
>True interdependence would mean one could somehow inquire into a random "Object", a stone, and bring a trace of me out of it, just as I can bring forth traces of it
There’s actually one Zen koan where a Zen disciple, experiencing a glimpse of sudden enlightenment, excitedly shouts to his master, “That stone is in my head!” The Zen master simply says, “You must have a big head.”

Photons bouncing off the stone enter your eyes. This causes a series of chemical and electrical changes and messages to be registered and sent to the back of the brain, where they’re processed and converted into an image of a stone and projected in front of your head as a three-dimensional world. No eye-and-brain system, no visual “stoneness” as we perceive it. The sight of the stone is an aspect of “you”, it is generated by and interdependent on “you”, although “you” is here being used conventionally**, because “you” are something simultaneously inherent and residing in everything you perceive and experience but not specifically bound by it.

No “self” without “other”, no “other” without “self”. The truth is something nameless which could be called both self and other, neither self nor other, etc.

**It’s actually a convention in Buddhist logic to distinguish between conventional and ultimate truth for conveniency’s sake, thus allowing (obviously) for Buddhists to simply say things like “I’m hungry” rather than some hyper-analytical diarrhea like “This body, itself a mere appearance in the mind and not ‘mine’, is experiencing hunger...” or something like that

>>13531689

Produce, then, my next reply from the stone.

>>13532155
Both your stone and your next reply or non-reply are ultimately the same to me.

>>13525845
Imagine reposting your own meme threads in the form of a picture because you thought it was clever

>>13531552
>Brahmayana is what the buddha called his teachings, not buddhism. Buddhists are not practicing brahmayana.
>>13531627
>>13531641
I would be careful about trusting Ken Wheeler's interpretations of the Pali Canon blindly without doing your own reading to compare.

I am aware that Ken Wheeler loves to interpret passages about the Citta (mind) as being some sort of eternal aspect of a being synonymous with the Nous/spirit/will, since it is not listed as an aggregate like viññāṇa is. The problem is, there are various passages that contradict such an interpretation, such as:

>Nāmarūpa-samudayā cittassa samudayo. Nāmarūpa-nirodhā cittassa atthagamo.
>From the origination of name-and-form is the origination of the mind.
>From the cessation of name-and-form is the cessation of the citta (mind).
- SN 47.42
And
>“But, bhikkhus, as to that which is called ‘mind(citta)’ and ‘mentality(mano)’ and ‘consciousness(viññāṇa)’ —the uninstructed worldling is unable to experience revulsion towards it, unable to become dispassionate towards it and be liberated from it."
>Just as a monkey, brethren,
>faring through the woods,
>through the great forest
>catches hold of a bough,
>letting it go
>seizes another,
>even so that which we call mentality (mano),
>that we call mind (citta),
>that we call consciousness (viññāṇa),
>that arises as one thing,
>ceases as another,
>both by night and by day.
- SN 12.61

I don’t think any sort of eternal essence of a being would be able to cease as if codependent on name-and-form, and I don’t think the Buddha would have told his followers to become revolted and dispassionate towards it as with consciousness and mentality. He wouldn’t have told them that it arises as one thing and ceases as another by day and by night. That second passage also seems to indicate that Citta is indeed a general term for ‘mind’ in the same sort of category as viññāṇa while encompassing a bit more than it (such as mental activity/cognition). This fits the standard interpretation by revered and authoritative scholars such as those from the Pali Text Society (which Wheeler seems to have a fair degree of respect for himself, often mentioning C.A.F Davids in a very positive light, the publication’s president for some 20+ years). It is safe to assume that any other interpretation of the word is fringe and highly inconsistent with its usage throughout the early Pali texts.

>>13526603
>no replies in 24 hours

Men of the world tremble before the Logos.

test

>>13532684
>>13531641
>>13531627
>>13531552

I am also aware that Wheeler likes to cite SN 22.43 (and other similar suttas referring to the Atta as refuge) as proof of the Buddha teaching that the Atta (which he arbitrarily equates to the Atman) should be one’s refuge and pathway to salvation. There can be two interpretations here of what the Buddha means by the word ‘Atta’ (self).
There is my personal interpretation (which is the more common one) that in this passage the Buddha was merely telling his followers that insight into the Dhamma is ultimately achieved by them alone, and not by their teachers or anyone else, therefore they should rely on themselves in achieving their salvation:
>Attadīpā bhikkhave, viharatha attasaraṇā anaññasaraṇā.||
>Dhammadīpā dhammasaraṇā anaññasaraṇā.|
>'Do ye abide, brethren,
>islands unto yourselves,
>refuges unto yourselves:
>taking refuge in none other;
>islanded by the Dhamma,
>taking refuge in the Dhamma,
>seeking refuge in none other.
- SN 22.43

In this case, the term Atta (self) is merely the conventional ‘self’ that one uses in common conversation, (myself, I, me, you, yourself). The Buddha was not against using conventional language when dealing with conventional matters (ie not Nirvana), as evidenced here:
>‘That monk still might use such words as “I,”
>Still perchance might say: “They call this mine.”
>Well aware of common worldly speech,
>He would speak conforming to such use.’‘
- SN 1.25
(1/2)

>>13532790
>>13532684
>>13531641
>>13531627
>>13531552
Now let’s say that you think this interpretation is bogus, and that Buddha truly is referring to an ultimate Atman, capital S Self, when he uses the word Atta or Attan. That would not be consistent with this passage:
>He recognises Nibbāna as Nibbāna;
>having recognised Nibbāna as Nibbāna,
>he thinks of Nibbāna,
>he thinks (of the self) in (regard to) Nibbāna,
>he thinks (of self as) Nibbāna,
>he thinks, 'Nibbāna is mine.'
>He rejoices in Nibbāna.

>What is the reason for this?

>I say that it is not thoroughly understood by him.
- MN 1

Assuming that the Buddha was referring to the Atman whenever he said ‘Atta’ or ‘Self’ and union with the True Self that is Brahman, this would make Nirvana equivalent to Brahman and thus the True Self that is the same as Atman. However, here he makes it clear that there is no Atta (Self) in relation to Nirvana, and Nirvana is not the Self. You can interpret this passage by saying he was only referring to the conventional/small false self and not the true Atman Self, but then to remain consistent you would not be able to argue that in the other Suttas (such as SN 22.43) where the Buddha tells his followers to let their selves be their refuge, he was speaking about the True Self either. To decide that in one passage Atta means “Atman” and in the other it means ‘conventional/false self,’ would be completely arbitrary and inconsistent.

>>13532792
>>13532790
>>13531641
>>13531627
>>13531552
And for one last point
‘Brahmayana’ essentially means ‘the Holy Life’ in the manner that the Buddha used it. The Buddha was not teaching the path to Brahman and this is true for a few reasons
He continually refers to his own followers as ‘Brahmins’ and even himself as a ‘Brahmin’ throughout the Pali Canon, as synonymous with ‘contemplative’ or ‘holy man’, with there being a clear difference between the practices he taught and the paths of the priestly Brahmin caste. In Dhammapada verse 392 he distinguishes between the ritualistic Brahman priest and one who follows his teachings:
> Just as a brahman priest reveres his sacrificial fire, even so should one devoutly revere the person from whom one has learned the Dhamma taught by the Buddha.
And in verse 396 he distinguishes between a Brahmin by caste and a ‘true holy man’ – one who follows his teachings:
>I do not call him a holy man (Brahmin) because of his lineage or high-born mother. If he is full of impeding attachments, he is just a supercilious man. But who is free from impediments and clinging — him do I call a holy man (Brahmin).
It should be incredibly clear by now that when the Buddha says ‘Brahmin,’ it has nothing to do with the caste Brahmins who value the Vedas. And speaking of the Vedas:

>14. 'Then you say, Vāseṭṭha that none of the Brahmans, or of their teachers, or of their pupils, even up to the seventh generation, has ever seen Brahmā face-to-face. And that even the Rishis of old, the authors and utterers of the verses, of the ancient form of words which the Brahmans of to-day so carefully intone and recite precisely as they have been handed down-even they did not pretend to know or to have seen where or whence or whither Brahmā is[12]. So that the Brahmans versed in the Three Vedas have forsooth said thus: "What we know not, what we have not seen, 'to a state of union with that we can show the way, and can say: 'This Is the straight path, this is the direct way which makes for salvation, and leads him, who acts according to it, into a state of union with Brahmā! 'Now' what think you, Vāseṭṭha? Does it not follow, this being so, that the talk of the Brahmans, versed though they be in the Three Vedas, turns out to be foolish talk. In sooth, Gotama, that being, so, it follows that the talk of the Brahmans versed in the Three Vedas is foolish talk!'
- DN 13.14
In this passage, the Buddha and his followers directly call out the Vedas and talk of union with Brahma for being ‘foolish talk’.

The fact of the matter is, the Buddha was leading a Sramanic movement, similar to Jainism, opposed to the Brahmanic traditions. And for that he was despised by the priestly Brahmins of his day (as recorded in the Pali Canon) as his followers were persecuted historically, with Buddhist stupas, temples…etc being burnt down and destroyed for years in India.

>>13532684
>>13532790
>>13532792
>>13532800
Thank you.

>>13532891
Glad to help.
All I can say is read the suttas
Read Nagarjuna
Read Aryadeva
Decide for yourself what you think of the Buddhist teachings, let the Pali Canon speak for itself. Don't rely on commentaries, monks, Youtube personalities. Read it for yourself.