/lit/ - Literature

The pre-Buddhist Upanishads like the Brihadaranyaka and Chandogya predate Buddhism by hundreds of years and talk about Atman, Brahman, non-dualism etc. The earliest mention of Buddhanature is in 1st millenium AD Buddhist-texts that were made nearly a millennium after the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad existed. You played yourself OP

tat tvam asi

You and this immature, idiotic post are the same.

I’m reading Nagarjuna

This is just. A bunch of sophism. Are we to take this guy as some great philosopher?

Aristotle would wipe the floor with him in his worst day.

>>14230555
What has been said is not understood.
What has not been said is not understood.
Apart from what has been said and what has not been said,
Understanding cannot be conceived.

>>14230592
This is literally how can mirrors be real if my eyes aren’t real tier

The greatest Buddhist philosopher everyone

>>14230621
You're missing the point, this is all very simple.
Are you here? Have you ever been anywhere else?
Only you can say

>>14230472
ok guenonposter

>>14230712
How can something that cannot see itself see another? Really?

>>14230751
he’s talking about non-duality there
like how you can’t touch your fingertip with that same fingertip

>>14230555
>Aristotle would wipe the floor with him in his worst day.
A professor of philosophy already did

>>14230792
Yeah but something that can’t see itself definitely can see another.

Just as a fingertip can touch another thing without touching itself.

>>14230751
The object of sight is seen.
The subject of seeing is sight itself.
There is nothing seen, and no one seeing, apart from seeing itself.

>>14230621
>This is literally how can mirrors be real if my eyes aren’t real tier
kek

>>14230796
Interesting. Nice to see an academic philosopher actually taking on eastern philosophy instead of being condescending to it for a change because of muh wisdom

>>14230801
>Just as a fingertip can touch another thing without touching itself.
I guess that’s where the equivalence disappears. The fingertip certainly exists, but the same cannot be said about the “seer” which is never seen.

>>14230808
>The subject of seeing is sight itself.
The subject of sight is the seer. Seeing is an action done by a subject.

>There is nothing seen, and no one seeing, apart from seeing itself.
Seeing itself is an action. There is no action without an agent.

>>14230824
Where does he get that the seer needs to be seen in order to see another? You don’t need to see yourself in order to see others.

>>14230859
By “other” he means “other in relation to the seer” or “other apart/separate from the seer.” For there to be something distinguished as other/separate, there needs to be a subject for it to be separate ‘from.’ He’s not denying sight, but he’s saying that the duality of subject-object depends on the assumption of the subject. The subject cannot be found, since anything you experience or know of is by definition an object, so it makes no sense to distinguish things as “other” or “separate.” Other than what? Other than something that cannot be found.

>>14230841
>>14230859
The seer and the seen are one. Nothing seen without a seer, no seer without nothing seen. There’s only a holistic, unitary process of seeing.

If seeing is an action done by an agent, show me the agent doing the seeing right now. Where is this agent?

>>14230904
>The subject cannot be found, since anything you experience
The subject cannot be found, and yet you admit him to be the experiencer

>>14230841
Who is seeing right now? If you point at yourself, you don't understand the first thing about experience. Can you find the source?

"I see something" is the same as "From here, there is something seen". But where is "Here?". Is there even a "here" from which seeing comes from?

>>14230923
>If seeing is an action done by an agent, show me the agent doing the seeing right now. Where is this agent?
It is the awareness in which the sense of seeing is witnessed or cognized as an object of awareness. Seeing itself cannot hear sounds or feel objects, if there was no agent but solely seeing etc then there would just be moments or flows of independently experienced seeing, during which there would be no hearing, sense of touch etc as the seeing itself could not sense those things (under the hypothesis of there being no independent agent to synthesize these). The multitude of sensory data which is experienced by us as a simultaneous continuum shows the existence of an awareness who separate from that sensory data.

>>14230986
>But where is "Here?". Is there even a "here" from which seeing comes from?
Duh, otherwise there would be no seeing whatsoever as seeing is predicated on there being a "here" to see from. Imagine thinking this was a clever thing to post.

>>14230904
>The subject cannot be found, since anything you experience or know of is by definition an object
So he’s saying that there is not a subject “out there” that can be perceived as object. I agree because the subject is not an object by definition.

>>14230923
Assuming you’re the same person as above, you just contradicted yourself by admiting that there is a seer (hence a subject).
There is neither subject without object, but what is seen is not identical with what sees.

>>14230941
>The subject cannot be found, and yet you admit him to be the experiencer
This is precisely the issue. The subject-object duality is self-contradictory. In order to refer to objects in a sentence, I must by necessity refer to a subject. We refer to “objects” of experience even though the subject cannot be found. If I had instead said
>The subject cannot be found, since anything within experience/manifestation...
This completely cuts out the subject-object duality to begin with, and there would be no more problem.

Also Nagarjuna says that all views should be abandoned.

But isn’t that a view? So shouldn’t the view that all views should be abandoned likewise be abandoned? And if so should views be not abandoned, therefore reducing his point to void? A gratuitous statement?

>>14230995
>It is the awareness
The intuitive sense and assumption of which is also a part of the manifestation. Any sense, logic or intuition you might have about awareness or a subject, is necessarily within the realm of experience, and so it must not be the subject. What can distinguish this assumption of the subject from the intuitive assumption of truly existing external objects? I assume you accept that the perception of truly existing separate external objects is an illusion, even though that perception is based on intuition, logic, and assumption. What makes the assumption of the subject different and special?

>>14231081
That relates to the emptiness of emptiness, which he addresses in the late chapters of the MMK.

>>14231088
Awareness is not an assumption though. It is a primitive fact.

>>14231045
>This completely cuts out the subject-object duality to begin with
No it doesn't since meaning of experience is predicated on an experiencer, and manifestation etymologically meaning "to appear" is predicated on someone witnessing that appearance as well.

>>14231011
>seeing is predicated on there being a "here" to see from.
This is where you are wrong.
See the room you are in. The sight of the room has no need for you. Anyone who came into the room would see the room. Seeing is independent of the subject.
That is what is meant by "God is omniscient". Everything appearing in the senses appears for no one. Inside this world you see a body you call your self. Don't mistake that body for what you really are

Real talk: is Mormonism the most retarded religion on the planet? I mean if we are able to count it as something separate from normal Christianity.

>>14230995
>The multitude of sensory data which is experienced by us as a simultaneous continuum shows the existence of an awareness who separate from that sensory data.
It still applies. Lets take the entire field of sensory input as though it is one massive unified sense organ. The subject which observes the sensory phenomena (regardless of the specific sense) cannot be within the realm of experience, otherwise it would be an object. But then, without an identifiable subject that is within experience which can be pointed to and observed, from what basis can you distinguish any phenomena as separate “objects?” Separate from what?

>>14231110
>No it doesn't since meaning of experience is predicated on an experiencer, and manifestation etymologically meaning "to appear" is predicated on someone witnessing that appearance as well.
Even if that wording doesn’t satisfy you, all that you have done with this post is point out the manner in which language works to reify the self-contradiction that is the subject-object duality. The fact that any use of language regarding reality necessarily implies a subject for which the reality appears as object, does not mean that reality in fact follows those rules.

>>14231081
All views will be abandoned, to say they should be abandoned is just a preemptive strike

>>14231031
> Assuming you’re the same person as above, you just contradicted yourself by admiting that there is a seer (hence a subject).
>There is neither subject without object, but what is seen is not identical with what sees.

I’m not that person above, that was the first post in my thread, but yes, we’re getting into the limitations of language itself here. Realize that our language itself (maybe all Indo-European languages, I think, but I’m not a philologist so don’t quote me on this) typically presupposes a subject-object distinction. When I say “the seer and the seen are one” I’m acceding to the limitations of the English language to make a point which itself is trans-verbal. Just because I say “the seer and the seen are one” doesn’t prove the existence of the seer or mean I’m assuming the existence of the seer, it’s an attempt to use words to go beyond words.

Suppose someone imagines that there is a country inside of the United States called Karinose, a country distinct from the US itself. This place, Karinose, is simply a spot that a person has pointed to and said, “This is it, this is Karinose.” They’ve defined Karinose for themselves but this concept is merely a concept made up by them. You try to tell them “Karinose doesn’t exist.” They say, “How can’t it exist? It’s right here, I’m seeing it, and it is Karinose.” So I might say, “Karinose and the United States are one. There is no distinction between the two.” The person might say, “You just assumed Karinose exists by saying it and the United States are one,” and so it goes round and round, because the truth itself is trans-verbal. There’s actually not even a United States, either, or two people wrangling with each other ...

Confusing? Infuriating? Stupid? Buddhist philosophy seems like that because it’s trying to point at a direct experience beyond logic and words while using logic and words. So it typically favors “paradox” and “self-contradiction” (which you only call that because of the faith you have in your language and logic).

>>14230472
ITT: the one hand claps

>>14231177
>You just assumed Karinose exists by saying it and the United States are one,”
Madhyamika and a lot of Zen avoids this problem by pointing out that the subject and the object are meaningless without their relation to each other. If the subject and the object are “one” they no longer qualify as subject and object, and using such language only serves to reify the separateness of two things becoming “united.” Saying they are united is still accepting the existence of two separate things in the first place which come together. This is why Buddhist non-duality isn’t oneness, and they say “not two, not one” instead of “not two, but one only.” Without a distinguishable subject, there can be no more distinction of an object.

>>14231188
Clapping with one hand is easy bro check this out
*claps with one hand*
see, dunno what these zen-bros are going on about

>>14231088
>assumption of which is
If you claim that awareness is an assumption and not real then you have no explanation for how you're able to post right now and be aware of what I'm saying,
>Any sense, logic or intuition you might have about awareness or a subject, is necessarily within the realm of experience,
Yes, but experience means "to encounter or to come into contact with", our moment by moment experience ipso facto proves an experiencing awareness or there would be no locus for experience to take place. If there is nothing to come into contact with or to encounter experience than by the meaning of the word it cannot take place.
>What can distinguish this assumption of the subject from the intuitive assumption of truly existing external objects?
because the subject has to exist for the perception of any external object to be sensed regardless of the reality of those objects, there are no exceptions whatsoever to this rule
>>14231112
>See the room you are in. The sight of the room has no need for you. Anyone who came into the room would see the room. Seeing is independent of the subject.
Seeing is dependent on those individual subjects who entering into the room, your example fails to offer any evidence that the room continues to be seen when there is nobody there to see it
>>14231136
>It still applies. Lets take the entire field of sensory input as though it is one massive unified sense organ. The subject which observes the sensory phenomena (regardless of the specific sense) cannot be within the realm of experience, otherwise it would be an object. But then, without an identifiable subject that is within experience which can be pointed to and observed, from what basis can you distinguish any phenomena as separate “objects?”
Because of the very fact of them being observed as objects. The object can never be identical with the subject who witnesses it nor are inert objects self-aware and so the experience of any object only takes place via the seer.
>Separate from what?
the awareness in which they appear as objects

>>14231165
>does not mean that reality in fact follows those rules.
Yea, I can claim reality works however I want it to as well pal, that you can't provide a single example in which objects can appear without a subject to witness them should make it self-evident to you that it's a worthless idea.

>>14231266
The argument is not “there are objects that appear wit no subject” though, it is “there is no identifiable subject so by necessity there cannot be identifiable objects” and “the subject-object duality is a self-contradiction held together by unexamined perceptual assumptions.”

>>14231316
*Keep in mind that this is not denying reality or denying experience. This is denying the necessity of perceiving reality within a subject-object duality, considering how such a duality is self-contradictory.

>>14231316
>it is “there is no identifiable subject so by necessity there cannot be identifiable objects”
If there is no identifiable subject, then everything remaining which is identifiable in any manner whatsoever must of necessity be an object, there being nothing left to perceive other than objects. The logic of your argument is inconsistent (which is pretty typical of Nagarjuna). You are saying that without identifying the subject (which you claim is impossible) then objects cannot be identified as distinct from the object. But, if it is impossible to identify the subject, then by extension the only things left which it is possible to perceive must be objects, which would mean everything that is identified or is identifiable is an object. The first half of your claim invalidates the second half.
> “the subject-object duality is a self-contradiction held together by unexamined perceptual assumptions.”
If you are premising the notion that it's self-contradictory on the above argument which I just dismantled than I would ask you to provide proof of your claim. But even if we grant that claim to you, it only emphasizes the reality of the subject. Self-contradictions are not self-aware or self-illuminating, but only only be intuited, experienced and realized by a subject. If you find the notion of subject-object contradictory that's only a reason to accept the subject while disregarding objects.

>>14231472
*You are saying that without identifying the subject then objects cannot be identified as distinct from that subject

>>14231472
>But, if it is impossible to identify the subject, then by extension the only things left which it is possible to perceive must be objects
Even if you intellectually accept that the subject cannot be found, there is still (in unawakened beings) the sub-conceptual latency to unknowingly identify with and latch onto that which cannot be a subject (thoughts, feelings, perceptions, emotions, the body).
The point is that when one realizes the subject cannot be found, the notion of “object” or of there being anything objectively identifiable, completely collapses because it was all the while dependent upon the notion of the subject.

>>14231222
Yes, just what was meant

>>14231472
>If there is no identifiable subject, then everything remaining which is identifiable in any manner whatsoever must of necessity be an object, there being nothing left to perceive other than objects
> But, if it is impossible to identify the subject, then by extension the only things left which it is possible to perceive must be objects, which would mean everything that is identified or is identifiable is an object.

You assume objects exist so that you can then say “if there’s no subject there can only be objects”. This is circular reasoning, isn’t it?

>>14231128
No, it's actually very underrated. What drags it down is the historical stuff, but that's only a matter of newness, because Abrahamic faiths in general have really serious problems with historical/scientific evidence contradicting things they often propose or at least offering no support for the claims. The actual theology and metaphysics which Mormonism offers are some of the most original, creative, systematic, and genuinely attractive things a religion has come up with in recent times. Everyone tends to just re-do monist/nihilist enlightenment over and over.
Also if there's a Dharmic faith that is parallel with Mormonism, it's Jainism. They believe in the eternal existence of the universe, they endorse a kind of metaphysical atomism, of which mind is also a substance, and they believe the ultimate goal of mankind is to achieve a state of genuine omnipotence and omniscience. The Jains teach you can do this by getting rid of your karma and achieving moksha, the Mormons teach that you can achieve this through the grace of God by following his revealed religion, but otherwise it's the same idea.

>>14231472
>But, if it is impossible to identify the subject, then by extension the only things left which it is possible to perceive must be objects, which would mean everything that is identified or is identifiable is an object.
You are touching upon the contradictory nature of subject-object duality. Once you recognize that all that is ever known cannot be the subject (by virtue of being observed), you recognize that the notion of objects too is invalid. The idea is that if someone were to honestly and truly recognize that nothing within experience can possibly be a self or a subject, it would be impossible to conceive of objects.

>>14231824
>Even if you intellectually accept that the subject cannot be found
Only through normal introspection and analysis, but I accept that it can dawn and shine as itself in a spiritual realization which is transcendent to thought and language, I also accept that the idea of an attributeless unchanging awareness in which sensory data appears is a satisfactory placeholder for speaking conditionally about it (but this is not knowing it directly which only the previously mentioned option can achieve), I have yet to see any convincing arguments against considering that awareness as the subject, the last round was here >>14231246, nobody has tried yet to offer any good arguments against it after I offered my rebuttals to their previous attempts
>The point is that when one realizes the subject cannot be found, the notion of “object” or of there being anything objectively identifiable, completely collapses because it was all the while dependent upon the notion of the subject.
How is this not "how can mirrors be real if my eyes aren't real"? Just because the subject cannot be grasped and perceived as an object (and properly so, as it is the very nature of the subject to not be able to grasp itself), that has no implications for the status of objects ontologically or otherwise. That's like saying, "because the eye cannot see itself, therefore the objects that it sees are not actually different from the eye" or "because the eye cannot see itself, therefore the objects that it sees don't actually correspond to real objects existing qua objects"

dude the upanishads is basically 4chan for philosopher yogis who want to be annoymous before jesus or socrates were ever fuckin born.

the upanishads is too old. Indians wont forget about it just as weterners forget about whoever

>>14231128
I throw my hat in for Wicca. Leave it to a bunch of academicians, feminists, and queers to try and reconstruct and syncretize several dead pagan traditions which conveniently turns out to be something explicitly feminine that embraces and encourages queerness, despite the fact that most if not all of the original textual sources were destroyed hundreds of years ago.

>>14230504
Noice

>>14231968
bumping for a response

>>14231872
>You assume objects exist so that you can then say “if there’s no subject there can only be objects”. This is circular reasoning, isn’t it?
No, because it's entirely unproven that objects don't exist. I am also not assuming that this is not a simulation in a computer or any number of other unproven hypothesis none of which it is circular reasoning for me to ignore. I'm not responsibe for proving to someone that objects are unreal in order to point out that their logic is inconsistent. When someone points out something inconsistent in someone elses logic and that have to retreat into "well uh it still might work according to my unproven claim of the non-existence of objects which you now have to disprove" that's the truly circular logic my friend.

>>14233201
no one is claiming the non-existence of objects, but rather, that phenomenologically, the sense of objects is dependent on the sense of a subject, and that if one were to disappear, the other would as well. This has no relation to subjects and objects in the supposed objective public world, it is only commenting on the nature of subjective experience.

>>14233201
No, you haven’t proven that objects exist. They’re both assumptions, saying objects exist or no objects exist. Why don’t you prove objects exist first?