/lit/ - Literature

>>16739518
>what exactly is non-self
not you
>if the self isn't real, then what is it that is reborn?
nothing, that's the point
>no you? no you to be birthed again.

>>16739559
Except buddhist doctrine states that you can achieve nibbana in several incarnations after stream entry, which implies there is some essence here that is being reborn prior to achieving nibbana.

>Buddha
Didn't live a tough life.

>>16739566
>which implies there is some essence here that is being reborn prior to achieving nibbana
that's your karma, which is essentially tied to the notion of agency
residual karma = identification with agency = seeing self in non-self = rebirths
stream-enterers just have reduced rebirth seeing as they've already broken free from some of the fetters. they aren't *entirely* rid of selfhood, so aren't free from the cycle, but the worst nuclei are gone.

>>16739518
>What exactly is non-self
It's not a what, it's a how. Anatman, anatta, sunyata, Emptiness, non-self, these are descriptions of how things are. In short, they can be broken down into parts and there is no one part that, if lacking, it will not be. What part of your car do you need to remove for it to no longer be "a car"? What single atom of your computer will not let you shitpost if it is not present? What single, tiny, minute part of you needs to be present for you to be (You)? There isn't one. Your car is made of parts, and yet it drives. That is non-self.

>And if the self isn't real, then what is it that is reborn?
It's not that the Self isn't real, but that all conceptual constructions are just that: conceptual. Nothing is reborn. A better question is what does rebirth involve? The bundle that you are. An overly materialist, reductionist, yet none the less apt, example would be "what happens to your atoms after you die"? They are reborn. Where did the atoms that make up the you that came out of your mother's womb come from? They were reborn. But a human is more than just mere atoms, so what is reborn is composed of more than just mere atoms. In short, the parts are.

>then what experiences Nirvana?
Nothing does, Nirvana is not a place like the Abrahamic heaven is. It's a state, saying you're "in" Nirvana is a conceptual shorthand. You're already "in" Nirvana. You're already "doing nirvana". You are already "in the state of Nirvana". The problem is, you're also in Samsara, doing Samsara, and in the state of Samsara. Buddhism, then, is about achieving the state of limitless freedom from all conceptuality and all binding that is Nirvana in absence of the state of Samsara.

>>16739663
hmm
so if i were to plunge myself into a black hole, i would never be reborn. Would that be the same as finding nirvana?

>>16739675
>would that be the same as finding nirvana
you're quite far a way off from understanding nirvana
materialist analogies tend to fall short when communicating the idea to westerners
what anon is saying here is that nirvana is a more properly speaking a "viewpoint", an inconsequential realization that your material existence isn't "you" because it's impermanent. what's impermanent has no intrinsic being, and knowing this is nirvana. the character of things doesn't change, the buddhist says, because the viewpoint of nirvana was always the case, you just didn't know it (hence 'delusion' and the somewhat weird equation 'nirvana = samsara')

>>16739663
>You're already "in" Nirvana. You're already "doing nirvana". You are already "in the state of Nirvana". The problem is, you're also in Samsara, doing Samsara, and in the state of Samsara

>>16739713
The same would be like saying you're currently in a state of Death already. When youre dead, nothing fundamentally changes from when youre alive, it's just that the components that currently comprise you will disperse.

What is exactly nirvana? How does reincarnation stop when nirvana is achieved?

>>16739518
Non-self is just like the self: it is no-thing. It's not here, there or anywhere. There is no self or no-self, all you have is this moment right now. You're not getting reborn either because you were never alive to begin with. Thus, you must shut up and sit quiet until you get it. It's only in quietude you'll be able grasp this truth.

>>16739675
No. Firstly, black holes don't destroy anything, they just scramble it the fuck up, so you'd just be torn to shreds, made into energy, and spat out by the black hole (as hawking radiation). Secondly, this is taking a hyper-materialist perspective, which is only useful as a demonstration of what rebirth entails as a concept. Buddhists in Asia (as would I) would argue that there are mental and spiritual factors to "you" that would be able to leave the black hole. How? Spirit shit.

>But doesn't that mean that you could be reborn as multiple people?
Yes. As multiple people in multiple times, too.

>>16739726
A state of limitless freedom from all conceptuality and all bounds. It's freedom from "being" and "non-being", it's freedom from space, it's freedom from time. Fundamentally, we cannot understand it via conceptuality precisely because conceptuality requires us to bind and limit something ("A chair is not a dog" means that the chair is limited from being a dog). There's a book written by a Western (although he studied in Thailand) monk, Thanissaru Bhikku, called "The Mind Like Fire Unbound". You can get it off of accesstoinsight.org, and it details the "fire metaphor". Nirvana means "blowing out", extinguishing". However, it literally means "unbinding". The ancient Indians viewed fire as a pure potentiality that lived in a parallel dimension, it was only bound to our dimension by the chains of fuel. When those chains were broken, through water, through smothering, through burning up all of the fuel, the fire returned to its pure, limitless state. So to do we: when we stop adding fuel to Samsara (karma), we stop burning. Where then, do we go? Where does a fire "go" when it goes out? Everywhere, and nowhere. It's improper to speak of a place. But, it's also flat out wrong to say that the fire is now "nothing" or is "destroyed". After all, you can just light another fire, and it comes back. This MUST be understood in terms of the Indian theory of fire, which the Buddha explicitly references (I'm actually quoting him with the "everywhere and nowhere, actually talking about a place at all is wrong" bit).

>but if fires can be restarted, can samsara?
The Theravada says no, the Mahayana (specifically the Madhaymaka school, that all to 99.99% of Mahayana adhere to) says maybe, but the specifics of what that "maybe" entails vary within the Mahayana.

>>16739957
>Yes. As multiple people in multiple times, too.
Can you give an example?

>>16739559
is it fair to say that (this is going to be hard to express well) it is by the act of living being wrapped up in the course of events that the illusion of self comes about? So that self is almost a rationalisation that emerges out of common life, but the grasp of which can then first be identified and then neutralised by removing that which nurtures it, ie "common life" with all its events and narratives and so on? So that to live is to be held in a grasp, but that the grasp can be loosened if life is strictly reduced? That the flow of events cause a kind of reaction that can only be undone by stopping the flow?

>>16739518

one word to a wise man
one lash to a bright horse

>>16740099
One (you) to a devoted shitposter

>>16739957
The fire metaphor doesn't really work when you know what fire is though does it. The atoms just turn start doing other stuff

is it the goal of buddhists to die?

>>16740085
>it is by the act of living being wrapped up in the course of events that the illusion of self comes about
you would be right to say this, imo

>self is almost a rationalisation that emerges out of common life
>that the flow of events cause a kind of reaction that can only be undone by stopping the flow
though it's a nitpick of mine i wanna note that while these points are strictly correct from the eastern worldview, to conclude the same across the board (for yourself, for example) should be reserved for the event that you genuinely want to approach nirvana. it's baked into the eastern idea of existence that worldly living is "bad", because it impedes progress toward their cultural goal of life, which is moksha or nirvana. understand the eastern worldview is a circularly self-consistent narrative, so what is "common life" ought to be understood as common life as it appears to the easterner.

>>16739518
Consciousness is reborn constantly. Inspect the mind: it embodies you and at the same time non you. Dreams. Statements. Autonomous acts. All these are inflicted. Ducks. Children. 4chan posters. All these are also non-self.

>>16740148
hm, ok

>>16740148
>is a circularly self-consistent narrative
what does this mean?

>>16740148
>what is "common life" ought to be understood as common life as it appears to the easterner.
i dont think you should have any trouble understanding this but this is to avoid confusions of the sort where the eastern juxtaposition of "worldly life" as bad with enlightenment as good is equated with the western moral dualism of good and evil. the two are completely incommensurable. it's comparing "faith+works" with "renunciation of works"

this can be done if you concern with those traditions which incorporate a dimension of direct realization though (Plotinus, Eckhart, the sufi mystics, the gnostics, etc.) - see Guenon, as these always incorporate renunciation of some kind

>>16740172
sorry it's hard to explain my intuition but the gist of it is that while the words can be translated the cultural context of a religion generally cannot because it's a "closed system" with a unique soteriological end. intermingling of two incommensurable worldviews generally results in a mangled and incomprehencible doctrine, see above note

is it a fair guess to say that buddhism fosters compassion because compassion fosters detachment? If so, what keeps a buddhist being compassionate once he has reached enlightenment?

>>16740148
To put it simple:

>132. The gate of highest reality has nothing to do with the two forms of thought-construction [subject and object] ; Where the imageless stands, why should we establish the triple vehicles' (Lankavatara, XXI)

That's all you need to do: get rid of conceptual discrimination. Everything else will follow. Read the Lankavatara and you'll understand many things.

>>16740190
>see Guenon
No, fuck off.

>>16740278
If you stay compassionate you're never reaching enlightenment.

>>16740297
>No, fuck off.
what's wrong with rene?

>>16740305
mhm and so you exist in non-action. but are there then no "greater society" boons to this stage, other than being a kooky guy to the amusement of your compatriots?

>>16740278

satori is partially the inverse of experiencing emotions

>>16740309
Everything. You don't need a Western commentator with the abundant Buddhist/Vedanta material you can find on the internet for free these days.

>>16740297
>No, fuck off.
i don't particularly like him either, and i could go on long rants about what i find contentious about his thought, but he does illustrate the point i was trying to make quite well: traditions incorporating a dimension of direct realization generally share attributes and symbolisms

>>16740313
Bodhisattvas are compassionate, but first you must reach this level. If you start with compassion then all you're doing is wrong action based on dualistic impressions of the mind. The best way to help people is helping yourself first. I believe this is something everyone can agree.

>>16739663
>It's not a what, it's a how
This. A lot of Buddhism doesn't make sense until you have hundreds of hours of practice. The reason being the concepts (or possibly more appropriately lack thereof) are articulated in suttas are experienced in doing. Think of it like emotion. If you never experienced anger it would just seem silly or inaccessible if someone was describing it to you, possibly even mystical. You would begin to suspect people are feigning emotion(s) and what not. In truth you simply haven't put yourself in a position to experience said emotions.

This is what is frustrating about discussing Buddhism with armchair experts. Unless you have thousands of hours of meditation you generally don't know what the fuck you are talking about and the less meditation you have the more you think you know. There's a massive dunning kruger effect observable.

>>16740297
>quote vaj/mah buddhism
>shit on Guenon
I mean I agree guenon is for fools but come on brother. Nobody got anywhere with shamanistic fortune cookie crap.

>>16740453
>shamanistic fortune cookie crap
Try actually reading the Sutra before acting funny, brother.

>>16740493
I'm not saying the suttra is worthless. I'm saying quoting vaj/mah shit is shamanistic fortune cookie crap. Even renowned practitioners have admitted most of the knowledge is worthless to people without a strong grounding and lots of experience in theravadan practice.

>>16739518
Fucking bhuddist shits have no good answer to that question and never will. Avoid extinction ideologies, anon.

There are amazing things you can do with meditation, anon. Most bhuddists want you to erase your own personality with it. Because de-individualization is necessary for control cults to function. Now gibs all your money.

>>16740538
You have a really terrible misunderstanding of Buddhism.

>>16740538
Buddhists don't believe in personality. That's not the same as wanting you to erase your personality.

>>16740557
>>16740562
>we're not trying to erase your personality you never had one to begin with!
>who is this "you" anyway??!!!1
> *glassy-eyed stare*

You guys are such hylics jesus christ. The only ones worth a damn are Vajrayana bros.

>>16739518

>>/x/

>>16740522
You need knowledge and practice. And before you practice you need to at least understand the basics of what you're practicing. This Sutra has plenty of hints of what is the non-dual Mind, which is the key to basically know what you are looking for instead of practicing zazen for 30 years thinking that feeling calm and Nirvana are one and the same thing.

>>16740538
>Most bhuddists want you to erase your own personality with it.
Wrong. You must realize it is fake, and it really is. Getting rid of the fake will just make you substitute for another fake. If you understand it's fake you don't need to erase anything.

> Because de-individualization is necessary for control cults to function. Now gibs all your money.
That would be Christianity, sorry?

>>16740538
You can't erase something that doesn't exist

>>16740130
In the sense that the Buddha might be trying to apply some empirical rigor to his ideas by saying "lmfao dude fire ergo i'm right", yeah, I would agree. But then, he could have also come up with an on-the-spot system of how unicorn farts move through spacetime, and then said Nirvana works like that. The fact that we now know that ACKCHYUYUALLY fire is a plasma caused by the breaking of hydrocarbon bonds in an exothermic process doesn't make the metaphor less valid.

We don't need the fire metaphor to convey what the Buddha was getting at, but as a historical matter it helps to explain why he starts talking about fire not going away when it goes out.

>>16739965
A hyper materialist view is to, again, go back to the atoms. Some parts of you are eaten by a coyote at time A, and those go on to become part of a baby coyote that it gives birth to. Later, a vulture at time B comes by, eats part of you, and goes on to give birth to a vulture. This materialism is constraining, however, because again, Buddhist theory does NOT posit that people are just atoms (while Buddhism has an atomistic tradition, this atomism is closer to that of Democritus and is not "protons, electrons, and neutrons" atomism). The Buddha cautions against getting wrapped up in past-life stuff, because it's ultimately pointless. Your karma is set, you can't change the past, so who cares? Focus on the now and the future. This isn't to say that the past doesn't matter, but will it REALLY help you to know who you used to be in a past life or lives? The traditional answer has been "no".

>>16740538
lol

>>16740757
I don't think "de-individualization" leads to cults, I think it's precisely the opposite. When people are unmoored from any sort of collective identity, they fall prey to charismatic types. It's telling that the most individualistic generation in American history, the Baby Boomers, fell prey by the boatload to charlatans taking basic-bitch Christian concepts, wrapping them up in eastern gibberish ("karma" in the common sense Americans use it is literally just "divine punishment or reward"; "the age of aquarius" is literally just millenarianism), and swindling them.

>>16739957
>a state of limitless freedom from all conceptuality and bounds
Then it's not a state, because it can't be experienced

The self doesn't exist in itself, and is empty.

>>16740734
>practicing zazen for 30 years thinking that feeling calm and Nirvana are one and the same thing.

People who do that are indefinitely lost regardless of instruction as there are a lot more than hints that tell you they aren't the same. It has been my experience, and is explicit instruction from the Buddha that even "hints" are worthless when it comes to attainment. That said, they have their uses for recognizing milestones I suppose.

>>16740655
I think you might have an IQ problem anon as you never proposed that question.

Confusionism does the whole "non-self" thing 10x better than Buddhism

>>16739518
>What exactly is non-self?
It's the doctrine that there is no essence to one's self. The self is contingent. There's nothing you can say without a doubt is yourself: your name, your face, your body, your reputation, your thoughts, your actions are not 'you.' There's no 'self' that sits at the seat of your cognition that is transcendent. There is in Hinduism, which Buddhism broke away from. The self is like a river, it's never the same river twice yet it clearly is. What we call the 'river' is largely illusory.

>And if the self isn't real, then what is it that is reborn?

Rebirth is not reincarnation. Rebirth is like lighting a candle with another candle, they aren't exactly the same flame but they share causation.

>>16739518
>What exactly is non-self?
no preference/opinion. Things just happen, just are.
>then what is it that is reborn?
new self
knowledge of self as illusion. malleable. can be constructed in any way. all with merit, meaning, justification.

>>16740655
You are spiritually retarded

>>16740871
>people don't have personalities
what level of Buddhistcuck cope is this?
>inb4 there are no people
Not an argument.

/thread

>>16740982
What leads people into cults, specially the shady ones, is the human necessity for being special and receiving something fantastic for little to no effort. Not a single person on this planet has entered a cult with absolute pure intentions. But if you read the Buddhist scriptures, they're very clear in saying: you'll gain nothing and lose everything. Jesus said the exact same thing: follow me and get ready to die like a criminal. But people forget all this and go for the "easy" way, because they're impressed by such and such guru or priest or anything. This is why Buddhism teaches forgetting about your own personality, because it's precisely the necessity to fill the needs with this fake persona that makes people easy targets for cults, like you said.

>>16741125
>Upanishads
>btfoing anything

God will you poos please stop posting nonsense

>>16741134
He btfos no-self through a process of dialectal argumentation in the picture

>>16739518
what is self? what you think about you? today you have one idea about yourself, 10 years ago it was another idea, 10 years from now it will be yet another idea. you were born without any personality, yet you were you. your self changes constantly, bit by bit, every day, every second, yet you remain you.

who are you? (C) caterpillar to Alice.

>>16739518
Ok let´s take this thread in another direction.

I thought like 2 hours about this stuff cause i couldnt sleep and came to this conclusion:
>1.there is a static self made up on the sum of your memories/experiences shaping your character through which you filter incoming stimulus
>2. there is a dynamic self which is just pure experience in the now. these experiences depend only on the outside actions to your consciousness and get filtered through your static self

where to go from there??
the concept of static self is the thing i hear in psycog and philsophy discussion about the self.
the dynamic self is the stuff spiritual teachers talk i guess and sounds a lot more interesting to me.

how make i sense of this dynamic self?
is this the spark which started with my first conscious experience and severed me from the rest of the universe and went on from then like a wall clashing through the sum of my experiences of my life growing my static self into my personality?
it sounds pretty much like the reason to me on why i am locked in to being only myself and only experience my life and not others right now.

>>16739518
there are many definitions of anatta.
not-self: there is no constant, unchanging, solid thing we can call self. that is: what ever we can recognise as a supposed self is constantly changing. if we sit and watch we realise that who we define our self as, who we feel we are, who we identify as is in constant flux. self is defined by the 'objects' of experience. buddhists who define anatta this way will say "there is always a sense of self but it is not me".
this one works best for a western mindset imo. the 'I' function is too tied up, central, in our psycho-linguistic structure for self to be totally unclarified. not-self can be used as a platform to realise no-self.
no-self: that there is no self. we keep looking only to find that anything we thought of as me, mine or i cannot be seen as a constant unchanging me - therefore there is no-self to be found.
>>16740562
its not that they dont believe in a personality. its that the personality is not-self. it exists dependant on causes and conditions - the personality is who we have been conditioned to be.
>>16740998
your going to need to define emptiness to say that..
>>16740453
what is wrong with guenon? please explain.

>>16741896
>>what is wrong with guenon? please explain.
bourgeois intellectual bored with Christianity and free masons so he does what those people always do, travel a lot going form teachings to teachings being a religion slut, deluding himself he has a real grasp of whatever the fuck he wants to hear, and since he doesn't find it, he jut ends up a perennialist.

>>16741404
>>16741404
there is what you like and dislike, which is personal and that's not-self

and the thing about''
>2. there is a dynamic self which is just pure experience in the now.'' does not exist in buddhism.
Living in the present moment and so on is an idea by the westerner and chinese.

>>16740982
>collective identity
does not exist and can only lead to nihilism once people see it's just larp

>>16741404
There is nothing static in the universe expect for ultimate reality itself in its most pure nondual form (or formlessness)

This "sum of your memories" is just an abstraction and a mental imagined picture made from smaller parts. All of you is composite, thus all of you is a dynamic self, and is fully impermanent even moment-to-moment. Any static self is just a mirage that is impermanent like the rest of everything in the present moment. All you really have is the present moment, and a bunch of mental abstractions you tangle yourself up in that is projected on top of that present moment.

>severed me from the rest of the universe
You are fully within and fully a part of the universe. There is no true subject/object distinction. Think about this: a photon travels through space and hits your retina, causing a chain reaction of nerve tissue leading into your brain, where neurons stimulate neurons for you to think, and these result in your behaviors which influence the world. This chain of cause and effect flows in and out of you all the time, and if your mind was separate then you would not be effected by the world and would not effect the world.

>>16739583
Exactly. This is why Jesus Christ is superior.

>>16742078
this

>>16739518
>What exactly is non-self?
the Absolute, the Non-Conditioned
>And if the self isn't real, then what is it that is reborn?
Nirvana and Samsara are exactly the same thing

add an h it becomes non-h-self

why I think I prefer abrahamic traditions so strongly is because anyone who truly believes in God is more or less saved already. I think it's the same as buddhism in that it is a perspective on who/what you are and what it means to act, but unlike buddhism it is not elitist.

>>16742078
but every time I had the awareness I needed to relieve myself in the bathroom, I went to the bathroom. And every time I came back the feeling was gone. Some empirical observations are remarkably consistent.

“There was a young man who said though,
it seems that I know that I know,
but what I would like to see
is the I that knows me
when I know that I know that I know.”

dude

why do buddhist threads trigger guenonfag so much?

>>16743126
someone just recommended me a text on daoism and sufism by guenon, so now I'm just interested in seeing how he's viewed by the seriouser larper-cadre

>>16742750
this is why Shinran had to reconfigure the whole thing

>>16743170
tell me more

>>16739518
The idea of reincarnation, saṃsāra, did not exist in the early Vedic religions.[32][33] The idea of reincarnation has roots in the Upanishads of the late Vedic period (c.1100 – c.500 BCE), predating the Buddha and the Mahavira.[34][35] The concepts of the cycle of birth and death, samsara, and liberation partly derive from ascetic traditions that arose in India around the middle of the first millennium BCE.[36] Though no direct evidence of this has been found, the tribes of the Ganges valley or the Dravidian traditions of South India have been proposed as another early source of reincarnation beliefs.[37]

REINCARNATION IS A RETARDED DRAVIDIAN GYNOCENTRIC IDEA, CULT OF THE EARTH, OK? THE NON-SELF DOCTRINE IS CORRECT AND *ARYAN*, BUT DRAVIDIANS SUCK DICKCKCKCCK

>>16743176
In short Shinran rejected Self Power, i.e. the idea that humans can achieve enlightenment through their own efforts. Instead he claimed that faith alone in the Other Power, i.e. God, leads to salvation, just as you suggested above.

Why are all of the Buddhist threads on here filled with retards answering as if they know what the fuck they're talking about? Jesus Christ it's like you've looked at the Wikipedia page and just made up your mind on what it all means.

>ctrl F
>no mention of subtle energies
>no mention of clear light

>>16743225
>>>no mention of subtle energies
>>no mention of clear light
not buddhism

>>16739559
what's the difference between nirvana and jumping in front of a train if rebirth doesn't exist?

>>16743205
interesting. was he succesfull? sounds like a prophet desu

>>16739518
>What exactly is non-self?
A contradictory mess that kills buddhism, thank God.

>>16739518
Buddha never said there is no self.

>>16743236
debunked

>>16739957
Define freedom

>>16740132
no, its their goal to never be born
If buddhists were in any way serious about their beliefs they would annihilate all life in order to stop the wheel of reincarnation. They would seek to kill all living things out of mercy just to save them from suffering. They don't, though, that's how you know they dont actually believe the garbage they spew.

>>16743314
killing accumulates karma = rebirth

>>16743322
This. No easy way out unfortunately, you gotta put in the effort to escape the wheel of samsara.

>>16743281
He also said there is no essence that is being reborn, yet there is.

>>16740538
this
Buddhism is a cult of gaslighting and abuse

>>16740757
>That would be Christianity, sorry?
Stop projecting! Christianity affitms the personhood of all people and even that of God himself. Christians are called to cultivate their personality.
Repent, it's not too late for you to accept God's love!

>he's still on the "self"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L81tz5WePBc

>>16741074
It exists as a illusion, you can sense it, but it doesn't have being in itself.

>>16743358
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sn7QvnhJgeA

>>16742083
this

>>16743372
if he had only answered he could have become a flock of happy animals

>>16743358
>>16743372
XRA got really weird near the end, and thats saying something considering this is the pilot:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=binN-lTcmyU

>>16743322
>you will somehow be reborn despite annihilating all life everywhere
I love how butthists purposefully miss the point to have gotcha moments
Shows how hard they are losing

>>16743314
How would that help anything? You'd just be destroying the human and animal realms, thereby leading everyone to be reborn only as demons, beings in hells, and Gods.

>>16743126
Guenon didn't like that Buddhism posited that things changed, as his weird syncretic Neoplatonism-Sufism-Advaita Vedanta synthesis posited an absolutely static world with change and motion introduced by sin and evil. His synthesis is an incoherent mess as Platonism, Sufism, and Advaita Vedanta actually disagree in a lot of fundamental ways, Guenon's Freemasonry-meets-Traditionalism just sort of mashed the three together because they all believe in a "Prime Thing" that's absolutely static. He doesn't quite get Emptiness, as his source on the matter is Shankara's misunderstanding of Emptiness and the Sufi understanding of Al Fana.

>>16742755
See >>16739663. Emptiness is not a "what" (this is Guenon's mistake, as Shankara just flat out didn't get Emptiness, Plato and the Buddha actually agree in lock step on Emptiness in the physical realm until Plato brings up the Realm of the Forms, and the Sufis are doing something RADICALLY different than Buddhism, Platonism, or Advaita Vedanta), it's a how. There's a causal continuity between every time that you go pee pee or poo poo, you feel relieved. But the fact that the feeling of discomfort and relief all arise and fade is precisely evidence that they are Empty: if they weren't, you'd always feel like you had to shit. There are causal chains making up reality, but if you keep zooming in on what makes up "a chain", you'll just find more chains.

To say that "you are Empty" is NOT to say that you don't exist (how would that even work? Buddhism completely rejects "something not existing"), it's to say that Emptiness is the description of how you exist.

>>16743440
I believe I see what you are saying
>and the Sufis are doing something RADICALLY different than Buddhism, Platonism, or Advaita Vedanta
why do you say this though?

>>16743436
killing prevents the end of suffering, fucking idiot

>>16743440
>You'd just be destroying the human and animal realms, thereby leading everyone to be reborn only as demons, beings in hells, and Gods.
Yes and then you would kill them too, because they are alive. Once you killed all living things everywhere there is no more rebirth.
>inb4 you can't kill gods and demons
Yes you totally can. What now faggot buddhist? What's gonna be your next goalpost moving "argument"?

>>16743461
>look how smart I am I got you in a gotcha moment
Killing stops suffering it ends life and if you obliterate all living things you have solved the problem of pain. Of course no buddhist has the guts to take their own religion seriously.

>>16743464
>Once you killed all living things everywhere there is no more rebirth.
This is false.

>>16743471
what will be reborn then?

>>16743471
>I-Its f-false
Uh-huh... Very convincing faggot.

>>16743436
>I love how butthists purposefully miss the point to have gotcha moments
buddhists believe in otherworldly beings. If you kill everyone, you'll just be in the lower realm with everyone. You didn't think this through...

>>16743470
>>16743473
I think the empty existence is out of time, and it is what is being brought into various living arrangements. it is indifferent to it if this takes millennia. in fact it is quite likely that it is already pre-determined what it will be throughout all time already, or possibly dimensions and so on. The point is that by your living you create a sort of motion on the surface of this empty existence, this being karma, and the act of killing everything causes a lot of motion.

And God knows best.

>>16743500
see >>16743464

You have no argument, you are just moving the goalposts as buddhists always do

>>16743464
how would you kill all living beings if there are beings in the deva realm which you'll never get to since you get relegated to the lower realms?

>>16743331
>>He also said there is no essence that is being reborn, yet there is.
rebirth is conditioned, you dont need an essence for rebirth, you only to trigger it's one condition

>>16743511
see
>>16743514

>>16743464
You'd also have to kill off everything in every world in all of the infinite dimensions, then. This is why anime protagonists who strike out their own path always admit that what they're doing will be futile, because Buddhists refuted this idea back in like 400BC.

>>16743455
Emptiness isn't a what, it's a how. It's not a noun, nothing can be "made out of Emptiness". Advaita Vedanta's mistake is in saying that yes, things can be made out of emptiness, which is why Buddhism's belief that there is no Brahman to act as the ground is "incoherent". Platonism, meanwhile, says that while the physical realm is an ever changing seething morass of flux and that "Emptiness" is an apt way of describing it, the Realm of the Forms, the higher spiritual realm, is unchanging. In all three cases, Platonism, Advaita Vedanta, and Buddhism all respond to "so are you saying that cats aren't real and in fact do not exist?" with "no", they're just arguing about HOW cats exist.

Sufism says yes. Everything is just God singing it into existence. The only thing that is real is God. Objectively. Cats have no reality to them. The transitory nature of everything that isn't God is such that it is flat out wrong to say things like "cats exist". In fact, even thinking that cats exist is actually polytheism. God's oneness is so all-encompassing that not only does he not have hands or eyes or feet (he's a discrete uniform infinitely large ball), it's literally a sin to deny his oneness by believing that anything except God exists. The recognition of this is Fana, the annihilation of the self, and of all things except God. Rather than trying to see that all things really are God (in some capacity), or trying to see reality for what it really is, or trying to get at what things really are, it's just outright eradication of the thing entirely to see God behind it.

This is, in my opinion, one of the meta-level failings of the Traditionalist project: eventually you HAVE to start taking things from religions and traditions and schools that are incompatible with things from other schools and traditions. How do you decide which similar things are "Tradition" and which aren't? Why is "The oneness of God" more Traditional than "human sacrifice"? Obviously, every Traditionalist would give their own answer, but that multiplicity is so varied that it might as well be "thing I like = Trad, thing I dislike = satanic inversion".

>>16743514
Are you purposefully pretending to be retarded?
You can only be reborn in places where birth takes places, meaning places where there are life. If you exterminate demons and kill yourself there won't be more demons anymore everyone will be reborn in the only place where life is: the Deva realm. Rinse and repeat.

>>16743526
>well ackshually butthist refuted this so long ago
Actually they didnt refute shit.

>>16743528
>You can only be reborn in places where birth takes places, meaning places where there are life. If you exterminate demons and kill yourself there won't be more demons anymore everyone will be reborn in the only place where life is: the Deva realm
this isn't how it works lol...

>>16743528
>deva sees you're trying your edgy anime thing
>squishes you
>you're reborn as a rectal parasite in a cow in some other dimension after only having killed three people in a school shooting
You didn't think this out, did you?

>>16743536
>implying this is something that only a single person do and not an entire cult of people
THe buddhist strawmans, moves the goalpost and doesn't adress arguments, as always. Your entire religion is just pilpul and doublespeak.
>>16743533
Oh yeah? Okay, then prove to me that you can be reborn without living creatures.

>>16742750
Not exactly, my friend. All Abrahamic traditions have a set of complex rules and cultic practices you have to follow in order to be part of the "saved" people. Just believing in God doesn't "save" anyone and any priest, or rabbi or imam will tell you that.

And this is the major difference between Abrahamic traditions and Buddhism: Christianity/Judaism/Islam appears simple for the new believer, and they progressively increase the complexity of the doctrines and practices exactly like a mousetrap. Once you're inside, you're so deep in their system there's no way out without destroying your own identity. Buddhism does the opposite: starts complex and ends so simple they describe the true experience of enlightenment as laughter.

Buddhism is designed so you can be free of Buddhism itself in the end; Abrahamic traditions are designed so you never leave the religious institutions you were introduced to. What you call "elitism" is simply the lack of interest in discovering the truth.

>>16743242
nothing!

>>16741143
Buddhism transcends dialectics jack ass

>>16743544
>a-akshually the dude kills everyone then himself then teleports behind the devas and kills them then kills himself then gets teleported to the lower realm then kills himself then dies
talk about moving goalposts lol, all you did with this thought experiment is scramble to find reasons to justify your premise. This is what we call circular logic.

>>16743544
>complains about bad arguments
>what if I genocided everyone and then myself so there could be no rebirth
I guess no one would try to stop you at all? Or that killing something removes all its energy and matter from existence?

>>16743526
This is an oversimplification of wahdat al-wujud. The reality of the cat is illusionary, but that does not mean that multiplicity does not exist, but only conditionally. It means that the cat is is not God in its totality, but is a reflection of God in a way. God is both transcendent and omni-present. Admittedly this is a concept with various different interpretations.

>>16743544
>Oh yeah? Okay, then prove to me that you can be reborn without living creatures.
not that anon but you clearly haven't read Buddhism enough to know that the highest realm in that religion consists of immaterial stuff and is composed entirely of minds that cannot be killed.

>>16743611
But we know that the mind emerges from matter, so this cannot be true.

>>16743618
You can't kill matter either. Only the conceptions supported by matter appear to have birth and death.

>>16741064
>>16741019

>>16743618
whether thats true or not (its something you have to prove really), that still has no bearing to your argument that a person can rid the realms of beings when there are, according to buddhism, beings that currently dwell in the highest realm as minds ie they have no physical bodies and therefore cannot be killed by someone else.

>>16743637
each time you post you are proving us right

Buddhist bros, please explain to me how consciousness, in its purest form (atman, phenomenal consciousness, awareness) is not a self? Absolutely ALL the Buddhist critiques of the Self that I have read talk more about the Me, the ego, than about the conscious Self. All the mystics agree that we are not our bodies, our thoughts, our identity, etc.: it's all composite and conditioned. But WHO sees this? To deny the consciousness that sees that everything is conditioned like the Buddhists do here makes no sense to me.

>>16741048
>things change therefore not real
>you not real
>too attached, don't need that stuff
>gibs Bhaktivendantashadguruparabuddhaloveydoveyranjeeshswami stuff

You fucking retarded fags.

>>16743526
does the "how" of emptiness roll on without observers? is it a "how" in terms of how to manage being human, or a "how" like I imagine the dao, in that it is a how things happen in themselves. Do you see what I mean? In as much as it is a human perception, faulty or not, that we constitute discreet units, is emptiness a "how" for such a unit or for reality in itself, the u known reality behind the veil of metaphysics?

And how did this how come to be and win prevalence?

>>16743652
You got some ego problems there friend. There is no "us" to be right.

Go stare at the wall and imagine you don't exist for six hours.

>>16743536
so there is an imposed, overarching will? since I assume this deva has this preference to save lives because it has been endowed with it

>>16743669
>There is no "us" to be right.
t. p-Zombie

>>16743526
>Advaita Vedanta's mistake is in saying that yes, things can be made out of emptiness,
False, Shankara does not write this or take this position in any of his works. I have called you out for lying about this before and I will continue to call you out for lying about this.

Filling your posts with lies can only be counterproductive to your goal of shilling for mahayana buddhism

>>16743562
So does Hinduism, but dialectical argumentation is the common ground where they meet insofar as one has agreed to debate other schools, and when this meeting happens the Hindu Atman completely BTFOs the Buddhist anatman position

>>16743556
the jews are one thing, but for the others I think you'll find that there is a very small requisite worship, and that the consensus is that this can very well be and often is enough to have a deeper understanding than a trained "master"

what a fun thread. God bless all of you.

It is a shame how all discussions about Buddhism and Hinduism fall to this, they are both such fascinating belief systems. Still, the autism does give me titbits that are interesting

>>16743707
Because many of the concepts got diluted or are inherently counter-intuitive. And thats not just western interpretations either, that already started from the moment Buddhism was born.

>when this meeting happens the Hindu Atman completely BTFOs the Buddhist anatman position

>>16743683
What do u think of thomist metaphysics? Of raja yoga? Ty vedantabro

>>16743683
Hey bhai, what do you think of fact that Shankara completely plagiarized Buddhist giants like Nagarjuna and Vasubandhu? cheers, hoping to have a fruitful discussion :)

>>16743695
Until you start asking questions as "who's actually saved?" and shit goes into endless philosophical debates that never ends unless they start cutting the throat of infidels/heretics.

>>16739518
>What exactly is non-self?
A complete fiction, a made up pile of garbage. The Atman is real.
>And if the self isn't real, then what is it that is reborn?
This isn't one of the major vulnerabilities of the foolish anatman position but is still one of the funny contradictions which it results in
>>16739663
>What single, tiny, minute part of you needs to be present for you to be (You)?
Consciousness, which is the self or you, and which is undivided and partless.
> but that all conceptual constructions are just that: conceptual
Only existing entities can have conceptual constructs, there being no originally existing entity prior to the construct, there is no one to begin them, the existence of conceptual constructs proves the reality of the entity who constructs them.
>then what experiences Nirvana?
>Nothing does
If nothing experiences Nirvana then it becomes a worthless goal, because spiritual goals which can not be directly experienced have as much practical value as unattainable one.

>>16739770
>There is no self or no-self, all you have is this moment right now.
And who is aware of that moment? Consciousness, is, which is the self.

>>16739957
What exactly is the thing which is supposed to continue like fire? It is not the aggregates correct? It is not consciousness correct? If what you are talking about is the materials which make up the person spreading everywhere *without* any corresponding continuing of consciousness or soul then that's just a materialist nihilist end of existence but dressed up in fancy metaphors

>>16740163
>Consciousness is reborn constantly.
No it's not, you are confusing consciousness with the mind or intellect, which are separate from it.

>>16739583
This meme is dumb as hell but it still gets a smirk out of me

>>16743768
>And who is aware of that moment? Consciousness, is, which is the self.
And how can consciousness be aware of consciousness?

>The Atman is real

>>16740998
>The self doesn't exist in itself, and is empty.
False and False

The Self, i.e. the witnessing consciousness does exist by itself because it is self-illuminating or self-revealing. We can tell this because of how our consciousness remains the same without appearing different every moment like it would if it were produced at every moment by a changing array of exterior circumstances and inputs from our environment.

The fullness of our conscious experience and the fact that we cannot deny we are sentient beings disproves the claim that the self is empty.

>>16743791
The average rick and morty soiboi has no idea what Atman is

>>16743791
Your arguments convinced me

>>16743791

>>16743662
Buddhists have no good argument against that because it is the truth

>>16743825
It's too bad, because I love the Buddhist emphasis on dukkha/anicca, but I just can't keep up with the third of the trilakkhanas (anatta).

>>16743662
First you explain to me how consciousness is a self without basing your inference on "b-but Krishna said so!!"

>>16743837
Tilakkhana*

>>16743662
viññāṇa arises from a condition, so it is anicca, dukka and anatta

>>16743844
Because it is the unconditioned source of our existence that perceives everything else. Our inner eye. The very source of our being.

>>16743846
Please explain to me how consciousness is conditioned and who sees it?

>>16743726
>Thomism
I think it is kind of based and agrees with Vedanta on many points, while still differing on some important ones.I agree with Advaita more but I agree with the arguments Thomism makes for God.
>Raja Yoga
I'm not very familiar with it, do you mean the title of the Vivekananda book? I don't read any of Vivekananda books I prefer to read the translations of the writings of actual medieval Hindu thinkers. The Bhagavad-Gita talks about Raja-yoga as one of 4 types of Yoga but its not mentioned in the Upanishads I believe.
>>16743750
Shankara didn't plagiarize either. The Upanishads already said that Brahman is unborn and that change is unreal centuries before Nagarjuna and even Buddha (in the Chandogya and Brihadaranyaka Upanishads). I'm not even sure which idea you think Shankara took from Vasubandhu but if you mean the Atman being self-luminous the pre-Buddhist Upanishads also mention this too, it's not an invention of Mahayana Buddhism.

>>16743793
So, what self-illuminates has existence as subject and object and somehow you "know" this by using your mind that cannot perceive itself other than separating subject from object? Where's your non-duality, bro? You're separating yourself from consciousness lmao.

>>16743864
>thomism
I hesitate between Catholicism and vedanta. Thomism is convincing, vedanta is fascinating, but I'm afraid of hell if I'm wrong about Jesus bro.
>I'm not very familiar with it, do you mean the title of the Vivekananda book?
No, I mean the ashtanga yoga of Patanjali.

>>16743864
If u have good books on thomism-vedanta, i take it btw.

>>16743793
no-self doctrines are entirely a cult control mechanism. most people have no idea how India is consumed by Swamisim.

>>16743864
>Shankara didn't plagiarize either
cope

>>16743665
>>things change therefore not real
that's Mahayana diahrea

>>16743776
>And how can consciousness be aware of consciousness?

Objects of consciousness “are distinct from cognition of it [sic], they can vary in their relationship with cognition, and can be grasped by it through the standard epistemic instruments (pramāṇas)”. Consciousness, in contrast, is never something that stands before my gaze, but always the very gaze itself. It is only revealed in the light it itself is, and is never something externally illuminated by this light, so to speak. “The sun does not need any other light for its illumination; Knowledge does not require any other knowledge than its own knowledge for its illumination” (Śaṅkara 1992, I.15.41; cf. ibid., I.17.40).

This “it is only revealed in the light it itself is” is what the Advaitins call the self-luminosity (svaprakāśatā) of consciousness. By insisting that consciousness is never an object of consciousness, they by no means mean that we are not conscious of it; on the contrary, it is, in their view, the most evident of all things, the primally given: “Though it cannot be made an object of knowledge, the Self is still felt very directly. So it must be self-revealing” (Vidyāraṇya 1967, III.28). We are immediately aware of being conscious. As stated above: No one (not blinded by some philosophical dogma) would find the question of whether (s)he is certain that (s)he is not an unconscious automaton to not be utterly ridiculous: that my consciousness at this very moment is taking place is absolutely indubitable. And this indubitable evidence is not based on some inference; rather we immediately experience our own being-conscious. From what should I infer the taking place of my consciousness? It goes without saying that I do not infer from my behaviour I observe that I am obviously a conscious being (apart from the absurdity of this claim, this would hardly yield the mentioned indubitability). Perhaps one could hold that I infer from the objects of consciousness that I am conscious of them. Yet when I am, say, aware of a tree, no inferential path leads from the fact that over there stands a tree to the fact that I am conscious of it. I could only “infer” this from the fact that the tree is given to me – yet this is actually no longer an inference, since the givenness-to-me is my very consciousness of it, i.e. precisely what is supposed to be inferred. Thus, what tells me that I am conscious is not what I am conscious of, but rather nothing but my consciousness itself – consciousness involves its own revealedness.

>>16743776
I think when it becomes aware of itself there is a development. First it is forced into a living shape, then this living shape realizes what has happened, then there is "enlightenment". Basically the partitioned consciousness creates a reality relative to the world of things, then it becomes aware of the reality as it is prior to things, and then it creates a reality relative to this new discovery.

>>16743855
If it is the unconditioned source that perceives everything, you already operated a division between this "object" and your subjectivity. In this case it cannot be an all-pervading consciousness because this thing "is" somewhere, like you are here right now.

>>16743880
>the picture that strikes fear into the hearts and minds of shankarists
holy based (pbuh)....

>>16743878
more like you take it bbc amirite

Why do Thervada hate Mahayana concepts with such a passion?

>>16743864
>.I agree with Advaita more but I agree with the arguments Thomism makes for God.
Please elaborate
+ http://www.studiesincomparativereligion.com/Public/articles/A_Thomist_Approach_to_the_Vedanta-by_Bernard_Kelly.aspx

>>16743885
>>16743885
>you already operated a division between this "object" and your subjectivity

It's called self-awareness. I understand that's hard to grasp.

>>16743584
Yeah, that's sort of the problem with mystical traditions: every interpretation differs slightly. I'll admit that I've only given the most extreme view (at least as far as I'm aware of) on this.

>>16743637
There's nothing in Buddism about HAVING to stop the cycle of rebirth. The Buddha flat out says that it's actually good in the long run for most people to do exactly that, so the NEET master race can have their tendies cooked by the householders.

>>16743662
There is no who that sees, there's just seeing. The seer and the seen is just a conceptual creation we make. Buddhist theories of the mind posit the mind as a composite thing made up of various processes. Buddhism flat out rejects the idea of "a consciousness". There's consciousnesses, plural. When you see something, there is sight-consciousness. If you close your eyes, this fades. If there is no seeing, how can there be the mental activity of sight? The same goes for taste, touch, hearing, mind (in Buddhist thought "mind" is a sixth sense that you are using when you remember things, or talk to yourself in your head). How can there be a seer if there is no seeing? How can there be a hearer if there is no hearing? How can there be a thinker if there is no thinking? If there is no mental phenomena, then where is the Self?

Even a basic level of introspection reveals: nowhere, because there isn't a Self at all.

>>16743889
>>16743889
>Why do Thervada hate Mahayana concepts with such a passion?
Why do Mahayana larp as buddhist?

>>16743885
I don't understand. It is the source of my experience. To deny consciousness is to deny experience, therefore being. You say that consciousness is conditioned. Who/what sees that? How can there be conditioned without unconditioned? Conditioned in relation to what? What perceives conditioning?

>>16743885
How can u say that consciousness is conditionned without experiencing it, without awareness, i.e. without consciousness.

>>16743844
what is it if it is not a self? what is it that has a continuing relationship (?) with the karma it (?) has accrued?

>>16743878
I would recommend "Theology after Vedānta" by Francis Xavier Clooney, a Jesuit priest who teaches at the Harvard Divinity School. I intend to order and read it myself before long. I have read some very high praise of it in some academic journals reviewing it.

>>16743898
>There is no who that sees, there's just seeing.
That's literaly consciousness

>>16743873
what I think is interesting is that when abrahamic mystics arrive at this, what they find- I think- are signs pointing to the creator. I have no idea really what buddhists see in all of this, but it doesn't seem to be that in any comparable way

>>16743873
I don't understand your question, maybe you can rephrase it into something that isn't so wildly strawmanned that I can no longer even tell what position it is supposed to be mocking

>>16743898
>I'll admit that I've only given the most extreme view (at least as far as I'm aware of) on this
It is one that every virtually every Sufi I have read, or seen give talks on, reject, as it oversimplifies the relationship between God and the Cosmos. Honestly their general perspective on this is similar in ways to Neo-platonic views.

>Yeah, that's sort of the problem with mystical traditions: every interpretation differs slightly
Of course, hence why one should be careful, but that is not to say there is not wisdom or truth in such traditions

>>16743897
Self-awareness is also dividing into object and subject, as you can only be self-aware of something.

>>16743908
>>16743914
You're tying consciousness to experience as if consciousness is "yours" or something inside you. You just divided subject and object. In this case: what is experiencing the experience of so-called consciousness?

Am I just stupid or does Buddhist metaphysics make no sense? They say that consciousness is conditioned, who/what perceives it? They say that there is experience without self, but it is precisely this unconditional experience that the "atmanists" talk about. It really sounds like they are confusing the ego with the Self.

WHERE ARE MY (YOU)S

>>16743943
huh, perception arises from a condition so ti is not-self

>WHERE ARE MY (YOU)S

>>16743943
if it made sense it wouldn't be metaphysics. the big brain question is who here actually read Kant. I sure didn't.

>>16743953
>huh, perception arises from a condition
Who/what sees this condition?

>>16739518
Non-identity. Identity is an undesirable construct that constitutes a form of attachment that is only bound to perpetuate your suffering. The soul has no metaphysical identity (Atman) and is reborn innocent as Karma is a system of natural consequence as opposed to a system of justice.

>>16743880
Your picture doesn't make any mentions of those ideas in the pre-Buddhist Upanishads, so it debunks itself and is worthless. All those paragraphs of theorizing and speculation about origins means nothing when we can point to Hindu texts centuries older then Buddha which already contain those ideas.
>>16743875
No, I'm not very familiar with Ashtanga Yoga. I have taken Hatha Yoga classes (which Ashtanga seems to be a modern version of) before and enjoyed it. Advaita doesn't place much value on such practices because they can become obstacles in the way of the "direct path" of knowledge for monks; but if someone is not a ascetic monk and is still maintaining a home, career and family then practices like Yoga, Bhakti, Yantras, etc are ideal for them since they will not be progressing along the direct path anyway.

>>16743928
Because they have an inerrant scripture that says there's a God-object somewhere and when they have the mystical experience they go "it must be God?" Superimposing God conceptions on metaphysical realities is what every religious person does, unless you rule this concept out which precisely what Buddha did and for a good reason.

>>16743932
Just ask yourself this question: who's watching the all-pervading consciousness that can be reduced to a self-subject?

>>16743964
>unless you rule this concept out which precisely what Buddha did and for a good reason.
what could possibly be a good "reason" at this level of things?

>>16743963
>I have taken Hatha Yoga classes (which Ashtanga seems to be a modern version of)
Not at all. Go read the Yoga-sutras of Patanjali.

>>16743964
>Just ask yourself this question: who's watching the all-pervading consciousness that can be reduced to a self-subject?
but then do we agree that there is one process of combined subject-object that is ongoing? does it include all of material reality? is there such a thing? what is there actually?

>>16743971
Not clinging to mere names that holds no value whatsoever is reason enough.

>>16743879
>no-self doctrines are entirely a cult control mechanism.
I agree
>most people have no idea how India is consumed by Swamisim.
Most of them don't teach no-selfism though, but that is a Buddhist doctrine, and Buddhism is almost entirely gone from India except for small pockets. Celebrity worship of undeserving "gurus" is a bad thing wherever it occurs, including the rest of Asia which sometimes does the same thing with unscrupulous Buddhist figures

>>16743964
>who's watching the all-pervading consciousness that can be reduced to a self-subject?
But consciousness IS the watching itself, like wtf

>>16743662
There is a self but is empty of independent existence, it needs another things to exist. More exactly, self surges in reaction to an experience. Self doesn't exist the way we sense it exists.

>>16743958
in the 12 fold chain of dependent origination perception (which is a part of mentality and corporeality) is preceded by consciousness

>tfw watch these threads to see if i can learn something about buddhism and dharmic religions
>always end up just more confused

>>16743991
How could consciousness be conditioned when it is precisely what perceives all conditioned things?

>>16739518
Novitiates tend to make a simple miscalculation when trying to comprehend it. The non-self is not a mere subtraction of the self. You probably picture some absence, a negation of your mind. In reality it is like going from a something to an everything. It is an enrichment rather than a deprivation.
Hopefully this vague and cryptic point helps clear things up.

>>16743979
Everything that can be divided into subject-object is a mere phenomenon and is merely relative.

>>16743994
Same

>>16744005
Consciousness is being

>>16743994
Just B.E. your not-self

>>16743981
why? and what if they do hold value? See my understanding of the abrahamic position is that God is lord over both realities. The fact that that can not make sense is adressed. See what I suspect is that all this enlightenment-as-highest-form shit is satanic, because it still boils down to you, even if you are a metaphysical and boundless process. Even in that reality are you subjugated to Gods will. That is a difference in value, and one that means something to living human being-objects with their particular faculties for knowing and living.

>>16744003
How is that different from the idea of the Hindus of unifying with Brahman?

>>16744000
Why would consciousness be privileged above all other things we see rotting away and festering back to life? This view is what leads to clinging, suffering, becoming etc.

>>16744020
>Why would consciousness be privileged above all other things we see rotting away and festering back to life?
>all other things we see
>we see
Precisely because it is what perceives everything else, it is the source of everything, that nothing that is not something by which everything is given to us. = Being

>>16743988
In this case consciousness can only be a thing, flying around, watching stuff, and then there's something else watching consciousness. Otherwise, how can you be aware consciousness is watching itself?

>>16744013
The value you hold is merely a societal value. If you go to India they have their own gods and defend them the same way you do. They'll tell you're stupid and they're smart for believing Krishna instead of Jesus, you'll say the opposite. If you can't get past this, you're stuck in Samsara.

>>16743994
>>16744007
just think a lot about what it means to think and so on

>>16744030
>5.633
>Where in the world is a metaphysical subject to be noted?
>You say that this case is altogether like that of the eye and the field of sight. But you do not really see the eye.
>And from nothing in the field of sight can it be concluded that it is seen from an eye.

You are like an eye that would deny its existence because it would live in a space without mirrors to see itself.

>>16744038
>its that easy

>>16744036
from my perspective it seems to me that you reach a ceiling and say "this must be the sky"

>>16744041
it is basically. consider things like "if thought arises out of flows of salt through tubes of fat (neurons), then is my pasta conscious when I cook it?"

>>16744007
>>16743994
start with this
https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/MN/MN19.html
and this
https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/AN/AN6_63.html
then this
https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/SN/SN12_51.html
and this
https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/AN/AN11_1.html
finish with this
https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/SN/SN54_8.html

>>16743885
>If it is the unconditioned source that perceives everything, you already operated a division between this "object" and your subjectivity.
Not him, but no he hasn't. His subjectivity (i.e. his existence as the subject) is the same thing being referred to when he describes it as the unconditioned source which perceives anything, there is no division because it is the same thing being described, but in two different contexts. The conscious subject is itself the perceiving source. There is no division, your argument is just verbal sophistry
>In this case it cannot be an all-pervading consciousness because this thing "is" somewhere, like you are here right now.
They are one and the same thing. Your argument is without any logical basis.

>>16743898
>There is no who that sees, there's just seeing.
You are probably too stupid or close-minded to understand this but when you actually analyze the implications of this position it has the implication that there is no way to distinguish your own seeing or your own subjective being from anyone else's, because they are all hypothetically equally just seeing without any seer, it is the self-revealing nature of our experience which makes it indubitably ours, absent this, there is no way to tell the difference between the experiences of ourselves and others

>The seer and the seen is just a conceptual creation we make.
Only pre-existing entities can have conceptual creations, ergo if these are conceptual creations then they become the creations of an entity, which is the self.

>Buddhism flat out rejects the idea of "a consciousness". There's consciousnesses, plural. When you see something, there is sight-consciousness. If you close your eyes, this fades.
Shankara already refuted this explanation of consciousness here >>16741125 and elsewhere, if this were true then our inner conscious experience would at every moment appear different based on the changing exterior data generating it, but this is not the case, there is a self-evident continuity of consciousness. Also it results in an infinite regress when trying to account for how sensation is observed by another, for if there is no conscious self to observe the sensations but the sensations are not themselves self-aware, then they just continue on for eternity without being cognized, making it impossible to have knowledge of anything.

>If there is no seeing, how can there be the mental activity of sight?
Under this explanation sight during dreams should be impossible

>How can there be a thinker if there is no thinking? If there is no mental phenomena, then where is the Self?
How can their presence and absence even be spoken of in the alleged absence of one (i.e. the Self) who can detect these changes? It can't
>Even a basic level of introspection reveals: nowhere, because there isn't a Self at all.
Who introspects? Who apprehends the result of that introspection? the Self

>>16744040
The point is, this is objectification of subject. In this case, who watches the subject? The error is in the identification with said subject.

>>16744052
From my perspective, trying to reach for a ceiling is for fools.

>>16744072
To note the experience ≠ to objectify it

Why is nirvana considered/assumed to be for the lack of a better word a "good" thing.

>>16744027
Even the vijñanavada school of Buddhism that teaches manifest reality is a mental product says not to become attached to consciousness. Your point of view leads to setting it up as an absolute being, god, creator, etc.

>>16744082
Experience implies subject/object division, otherwise who's perceive what?

>>16744071
>if there is no conscious self to observe the sensations but the sensations are not themselves self-aware, then they just continue on for eternity without being cognized, making it impossible to have knowledge of anything
You seem to be entering the stream after all guenonfag. May your next birth be blessed

>>16744085
seconding this: what is achieved? for whom? and what causes the karmic cycles?

>>16743935
>what is experiencing the experience of so-called consciousness?
Consciousness or the Self is self-illuminating, self-apprehending, self-revealing, see >>16743882, there is no separate experience who experiences consciousness, because consciousness itself is the experience.

>>16744085
because it removes delusion about the aggregates and stops cravings for conditioned things

>>16744118
>and what causes the karmic cycles?
cravings

>>16744071
>Not him, but no he hasn't. His subjectivity (i.e. his existence as the subject) is the same thing being referred to when he describes it as the unconditioned source which perceives anything, there is no division because it is the same thing being described, but in two different contexts. The conscious subject is itself the perceiving source. There is no division, your argument is just verbal sophistry

You're the one dividing consciousness into subject and object, then affirm everything must one unified object because you said so and I'm the sophist?

>>16744119
*because consciousness itself is the experiencer
>>16744102
Why would you even say that when to you it's all just a metaphor for some quasi-materialist bullshit where it's not me even being born anyway?

>>16744119
>because consciousness itself is the experience
So you agree it is not a being or a thing and is nowhere to be found because it doesn't actually exist?

>>16739663
>What single, tiny, minute part of you needs to be present for you to be (You)? There isn't one. Your car is made of parts, and yet it drives. That is non-self.
an entire philosophy incapable of understanding composition
woke shower thoughts on the ship of theseus taken to a neurotic end

>>16744126
>Why would you even say that when to you it's all just a metaphor for some quasi-materialist bullshit where it's not me even being born anyway?
If I recall correctly, (You) are an Evangelion being piloted by Brahman

>>16744132
Please elaborate

>>16744121
>cravings
arising out of false self-hood. but what does the false self-hood arise out of?

And is it true that created beings live under a set of karmic realities, which are immutable at least for as long as you are in the self that arose rather than the universal one? For instance that being peaceful favors enlightenment, and is therefore "good" in a kind of objective sense? So that buddhism includes a belief in an immutable moral Law, since one action (violence) begets suffering, and another (peace) does not, by favoring escape from the karmic cycles?

And what is the original cause of the karmic cycles?

>>16744144
>And what is the original cause of the karmic cycles?
See this is one of those things were you have to acknowledge Buddhism is a religion, and that the Western urbanite atheists didn't understand it at all and California has misrepresented it to you. You do have to accept karma on faith, the Buddha was silent on a number of metaphysical questions and saw there was a limit to what was worth revealing to broad audiences of people. Later Buddhist thinkers have attempted to fill these gaps with their own scholasticism but in all cases the metaphysics are always a vehicle for liberative praxis, not something for you to cling to for intellectual craving. To ask what causes karma is to ask what causes the universe, something beyond any observation with which we could produce cause and effect.

>>16739518
When a candle lights another candle is it the same flame or a different flame? Answer: it's a continuation, like momentum in physics. When get down to it rebirth is a stream, you're already being reborn every second as every atom in your body changes. A minute ago you were literally a different exitense, the "you" from a minute ago already died. You die thousands, millions of times a second and are reborn.

>>16744178
That would be profound if the inherent change wasn’t already part of what you are. It isn’t death. It is not cessation of anything.

>>16744178
inb4 someone asks what causes the fire and someone else says God did it

>>16744178
The point with Buddhism is that when the body died, the continuation keeps going. Because there are things like kamma that still have momentum. It's all very scientific. Check out quantum physics experiments where quantum entanglement literally rewrites the past.

>>16744187
What needs to happen for it to be cessation? If you're in a coma and lose your memories is that cessation? Your liver regenerates itself every few years, you don't even have the same liver now than you used to. If you teleport all your atoms are reconstructed is it the same person or just a copy?
It's not supposed to be profound. Sometimes the simplest concept is the hardest to swallow because the "self" wants to believe it exists.

>>16744144
>>And what is the original cause of the karmic cycles?
who gives a shit, even if there is a possibility for such a knowledge of this, it is not relevant to end karma so it is not part of the teachings

it is intellectuals who want to know this, they fail and just end up building a mental circus of spooks as a cope

>>16744188
Interestingly fire "Agni" is actually sort of like a god or a spirit at the time of the Buddha.
https://www.dhammatalks.org/books/MindLikeFire/Section0001.html

Although I've met monks that aren't too happy with this view on it.

>>16744187
Oh that doesn't mean it doesn't exist either. Buddha actually doesn't answer the question because it's irrelevant.

>>16744071
Yeah, this is the problem you guys run into: you're just arguing for the sake of arguing. This line right here
>Under this explanation sight during dreams should be impossible
Is a GLARING testament to your ignorance and the incoherence of your "beliefs". I literally JUST SAID that mind is one of the six senses. Sight during dreams works the same way that visualizing things in your head works. YOU aren't actually capable of this, of course, as you're just an empty husk being puppeted by Brahman, but actual people can do this.

If "seer" and "seen" were objectively real categories, then you could never stop seeing something, and that which is unseen could never be seen. If "seeing" weren't a thing, and instead these arbitrary mental constructs in your head were the REALLY REAL reality, then the universe would be static and unchanging. Perhaps you, the NPC, were programmed to be stupid and as such can never change from this, but actual humans are capable of changing. I will demonstrate: I am looking at my computer. It is thus seen; now I am looking away (I am capable of typing while not looking, as I am capable of learning, unlike you, who must be programmed), and it is no longer seen.

You take your Western materialism, and apply it onto an Eastern mystical tradition, and it creates all this incoherent jumbled up mess. Your total rejection of introspection (well, YOU are rejecting it because you can't actually introspect, but the point still stands) is a testament to this. You've never taken five fucking minutes to actually sit down and observe your own thoughts, and it shows. You literally argue that you're enlightened by your own intelligence.

Maybe not entirely related, but can the buddhist concept of nirvana be reconciled with an omnipotent, omniscient deity, like Sikhism tries to do?

>>16743837
Some of the Hindu and Sufi literature I have read also speaks about the emptiness, vainness, unsatisfactoryness etc of the world being a reason for taking up and striving on the spiritual path, it's not exclusive to Buddhism although the other traditions don't place it front and center.
>>16743926
Buddhists trying to reduce consciousness to the processing of the information obtained by the sensory organs is the eastern philosophy version of Dennett denying qualia.
>>16743935
>Self-awareness is also dividing into object and subject, as you can only be self-aware of something.
Consciousness is beginningless self-revealing knowledge/knowing/sentient presence, consciousness qua the Paramatma is truely not a subject who views a subject (knowledge) as its object, but instead that consciousness is the "taking-place-presence" of self-revealing knowledge, which is free from subject and object, where both this consciousness and its experience of itself as such self-revealing knowledge are one and the same thing (to be conscious = to have experience), which by its light endows the mind with activity and life. The mind/intellect places things in the relationship of subject and object, consciousness is the luminous presence by the light of which the mind does this. Consciousness itself doesn't do this. Subject-object are a relation that the mind or ignorance imposes onto things. But consciousness, which is different from the mind and which is that which apprehends the mind, is prior to and outside the subject-object relation.

When people refer to the Atman or consciousness as subject, they do so conventionally in the sense that it is the undeniable conscious presence through which everything else takes. When people think of their consciousness, they normally do so through the lenses which the categorizing nature of the mind imposes upon us, the clothes with which the mind clads our conscious-witness in when we try to mentally conceive it, which is why we call it a subject in relation to the object. It is not wrong in a sense to appeal to our experience as the conscious subject to prove the existence of the Self, because it IS pointing to our consciousness underlying that, but just indirectly through the subject-object distinction imposed by the mind. The Self or consciousness is free from subject-object, the mind/intellect is not.

>>16743356
Based.

>>16743943
>>16743943
>Am I just stupid or does Buddhist metaphysics make no sense?
It's not just you anon, I agree, as do practically all of the important Hindu and Tantric philosophers/theologians. I believe also that this is partially why some of the people in the Traditionalist school like Guenon held this position to, when you actually understand the intricacies of the issue, the idea that Buddha actually taught no-self becomes laughable, the supreme irony, a world religion founded on a demonstrably false absurdity. It seems more reasonable and less ridiculous in that case to suppose that Buddha never actually taught that and that most later Buddhists just misunderstood this doctrine, which is what Guenon etc eventually decided was the case.

>They say that consciousness is conditioned, who/what perceives it?
Exactly, and one of the main Mahayana philosophers Nagarjuna actually says in his major work that reflexive relationships like the eye seeing itself are impossible, so if Buddhists actually followed their own logic consistently, then there would be no way to tell if consciousness was conditioned or not, because in order for consciousness to perceive that about itself would be like the eye seeing its own color without the aid of another device like a mirror, i.e. impossible. But Buddhists don't have consistent logic, their philosophy is itself self-contradictory and Buddhists themselves contradict its tenents when they debate with others.

>>16744322
Dennett doesn't deny qualia exists, he says that since everyone has their own niche definition that doesn't agree with anyone else's it's pointless to use it, and you should instead be more specific in what you're talking about.

So, not only do you not know what you're talking about, but your comparison is totally incoherent. Not only is Dennett's actual position not at all related to what Buddhists believe (Dennett would probably throw a fucking fit about Buddhist theories of the mind for the same reason he doesn't like "Qualia"), but the meme you're using doesn't make any sense either (Buddhist don't deny qualia).

You're just doing the whole reddit "le buddhism is le nihilism" thing, and because Buddhism isn't nihilism, it just doesn't work out.

>>16744312
>but can the buddhist concept of nirvana be reconciled with an omnipotent, omniscient deity, like Sikhism tries to do?
zero chance and the buddhists do not even deify the jhanas, contrary to Hindus and tibetans.
Deification is literally made by smug midwits clinging to their circle jerking and deluding themselves they are in the know. It's really normal to deify, but it's really retarded and leads to wrong views and wrong nirvana (ie taking the jhanas as nirvana)

>>16744428
actually buddhists keep the deification of the meditation when they manage the seething brahmins

>>16743618
>we know that the mind emerges from matter

>>16743356
based and son of god pilled

>>16743964
>who's watching the all-pervading consciousness that can be reduced to a self-subject?
It's knowledge is self-luminous, so it requires no other watcher to watch it. It experiences itself.
>>16743989
>There is a self but is empty of independent existence
The independent existence of the self is its continuing conscious presence as sentience irrespective of the objects which appear and vanish from its field
>it needs another things to exist.
No it doesn't, and were that the case it would appear different at every moment as those things which it depends on change, but it doesn't, sentience remains the same
>More exactly, self surges in reaction to an experience.
No it doesn't, a surge is a change which can only be observed by consciousness, but if its observed then it can only be observed in that which is different from the observer, for the observer cannot observe its own observing

>>16744094
>Experience implies subject/object division
No it doesn't, because there exists such a thing as non-dual conscious experience without subject and object, and I'm abiding peacefully in it right now as I rekt your ass by exposing all your illogical and shitty doctrinal claims
>otherwise who's perceive what?
the non-dual conscious entity Brahman.

>>16744122
>You're the one dividing consciousness into subject and object, then affirm everything must one unified object because you said so and I'm the sophist?
No I'm not, I was referring to consciousness indirectly as the subject, but truly non-dual consciousness is without subject and object, it is because of the association with the mind that consciousness seems to be a subject in relation to objects. The non-dual consciousness which is the same thing as its experience is without subject and object, see>>16744322, This is the sentient light by which our mind gains the ability to act and to impose upon things the subject-object relation.

Buddhists only offer meditation on the apophatic aspect of Divinity, Self, Being, God, One, or whatever you want to call it. The problem is that it is just that, it acknowledges the truly apophatic character of Ultimate Reality but can't explain anything.

Idiots like >>16739663 thinking heaven is literally a place, having no knowledge about the basics of theology and still affirming the pretension of superiority of buddhist doctrines, is what makes buddhism toxic with this arrogance.

Also, reminder:
>Kumarila asserted that "Buddhist (or Jain) scripture could not be correct because it had several grammatical lapses." He specifically takes the Buddhist verse: 'ime samkhada dhamma sambhavanti sakarana akarana vinassanti' (These phenomena arise when the cause is present and perish when the cause is absent). Thus he presents his argument:[13]

>The scriptures of Buddhists and Jains are composed in overwhelmingly incorrect (asadhu) language, words of the Magadha or Dakshinatya languages, or even their dialects (tadopabhramsa). Therefore false compositions (asannibandhana), they cannot possibly be true knowledge (shastra) ... By contrast, the very form itself (the well-assembled language) of the Veda proves its authority to be independent and absolute.

>>16744312
If that being is just another being that happens to be everywhere and omniscient, sure, it works out. But all conditioned beings are subject to dukkha, so this entity also suffers alongside us, and needs Buddhism too (remember, the Buddha preached to the Gods, literally, he went up to the heavens and taught there).

So, the answer is "yes", but in such a manner that this deity is nothing at all like the Abrahamic Yahweh, or the Sikh God, or anything in Hinduism.

>>16744586
>the grammar cope

holy shit, the poos are just losing it

>>16744586
>it's not in sanskrit, therefore it's wrong
lol

>>16744575
>i have no idea what i'm talking about, but my opinion is really important!
No. Start with What the Buddha Taught, then read the Heart Sutra. For Christianity, Mere Christianity is pretty good for someone who is a secular materialist like yourself.

>>16744575
>Idiots like >>16739663# thinking heaven is literally a place, having no knowledge about the basics of theology and still affirming the pretension of superiority of buddhist doctrines, is what makes buddhism toxic with this arrogance.
i love how christians are seething at buddhists because christians utter sucks at mediation. Even fucking muslisms are better at meditation hen them. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

All the christians can do is cope hard and hype muh prayer to jesus muh hesychasm to get back some market share from the women and atheist drones

>>16744601
>>16744605
what is your explanation for blatant errors in ''sacred'' scriptures of your tradition?

>>16744605
the Two Truths Doctrine is an example, Buddhists neglect the gradual aspect of reality. Thats why the Platonic epistemological explanation of it predates the Two Truths and is much more complete.

>>16744131
>So you agree it is not a being or a thing and is nowhere to be found because it doesn't actually exist?
Your question could only be posed by someone who is hopelessly confused. It can't actually be found by whom? The finder? That finder who looks for itself is consciousness. If it didn't exist we wouldn't even be able to look for it. That we can look for it proves the reality of consciousness. Non-existent and unconscious things cannot examine to see if something is there.
>>16744134
You evidently don't, since you pointed your (you) at the unreal contingent Jiva instead of the real (you) of the indwelling self, witness and inner controller of that Jiva like it were an external object to that (you), the Jiva being one of the so many costumes of (you)
>>16744170
>but in all cases the metaphysics are always a vehicle for liberative praxis, not something for you to cling to for intellectual craving. To ask what causes karma is to ask what causes the universe, something beyond any observation with which we could produce cause and effect.
Buddhist schools throughout history have not followed this and have tried to attack other religious sects as having illogical doctrines, making their own doctrines into something which it is fair to critique; and when we do this we find that the various cosmological arguments made by Aristotle, Aquinas, al-Ghazali, Shankara etc establish that dependent origination cannot itself be the cause of the universe or samsara and that it could only exist were it caused by a beginningless cause like God/Brahman. To say otherwise results in all sorts of reductio ad absurdums, which is one of the favorite and most relied-upon argumentative method of Buddhists themselves.
>Yeah, this is the problem you guys run into: you're just arguing for the sake of arguing. This line right here
The issue of dreams and how the Buddhist model accounts for them is a completely tangential and irrelevant problem compared to the central discussion of the complete nonsense of the Buddhist no-self model, which contradicts our self-evidence existing reality as conscious being. Admittedly I didn't know they account for that, but you still haven't provided any good answers to the points made here about the existence of our consciousness disproving anatta.
>If "seer" and "seen" were objectively real categories, then you could never stop seeing something,
How do you know that have never stopping seeing anything? Because you don't remember what happens when you are sleep? People also sometimes don't remember what they do what they drink too much and attack people and then black out, therefore memory or our lack thereof is not a reliable means to establish that we don't experience anything during sleep.
> and that which is unseen could never be seen.
Only if you confuse the seer and the seen, one is eternal and the other transitory

>>16744673
You don't know what you're talking about, I'll explain.

Sanskrit is technically a constructed language, or more precisely a constructed register, of a broad linguistic spectrum. The colloquial language used was Prakrit (from "prakrta" meaning "Natural", as opposed to "samskrta" meaning "artificial"). Sanskrit is essentially Prakrit, but with more complicated grammar and a specific system of pronunciation in order to allow for greater clarity and nuance in speech.

Sanskrit was given to man by the Gods, and is the holy tongue. Anything worth saying is said in Sanskrit. The Buddha, however, gave his teachings in Pali (an Indo-Aryan language in part of the same spectrum as Pali). While we know he was educated in Sanskrit, he instead taught a doctrine that rejected the Brahmins' claim of being a special spiritual elite, and as such rejected the special place of Sanskrit. The Buddha taught in the language that the people spoke, not pampered intellectuals.

That's the error. The claim is not that the Buddha used the oblique case when he should have used the interrogatory, or that he was mixing up his gerunds and his adjectives, it's that he's not speaking in Sanskrit. The passage you quoted literally says so
>The scriptures of Buddhists and Jains are composed in overwhelmingly incorrect (asadhu) language
>words of the Magadha or Dakshinatya languages
>even their dialects (tadopabhramsa)
Because they reject Brahamnical authority (by not being in Sanskrit), they are wrong
>Therefore false compositions (asannibandhana), they cannot possibly be true knowledge (shastra)
If the Buddha's words were true, he would have said it in Sanskrit.
>By contrast, the very form itself (the well-assembled language) of the Veda proves its authority to be independent and absolute.

Also, Plato was born around 200 years after the Buddha died. This is unrelated to your misunderstanding of the Two Truths doctrine (the Two Truths is REQUIRED to have any gradual aspects of reality).

>>16744299
>>16744299
>If "seer" and "seen" were objectively real categories, then you could never stop seeing something, and that which is unseen could never be seen. If "seeing" weren't a thing, and instead these arbitrary mental constructs in your head were the REALLY REAL reality, then the universe would be static and unchanging.
What

>>16744394
more nitpicking over the usage of language instead of addressing the central debate in this thread, it's like you already can tell that the position you are arguing for is hopelessly wrong so you've committed all your efforts instead to attack people for not phrasing things in the exact autistic way you want them to

>>16744299
meant to cite you in my reply to you in the 2nd half of here >>16744753

>>16744779
If "seer" and "seen" are objectively real ontological categories, then how can anything ever change from seen to unseen, or unseen to seen? How could you ever see something new, if it cannot go from unseen to seen? If something's fundamental nature is to be "seen", then it can never be anything but seen. This is not the case, as we can obviously close our eyes, and things that were seen are no longer seen. If things can change, they lack an intrinsic unchanging nature OR they have an intrinsic nature that is totally irrelevant and exists in such a manner that it might as well not exist.

>>16744787
Sure, let me address the central point: you don't know what you're talking about, and your doctrines are incoherent. In a year, you'll have adopted a different religious tradition to argue about. You are unhappy, and your life decisions are why you are unhappy. It is entirely within your power to change this. Start by sitting down, for five minutes, every day, and just breathing, and watching your breath.

>>16744825
Can u at least try to be understandable

>>16744825
>If "seer" and "seen" are objectively real ontological categories, then how can anything ever change from seen to unseen, or unseen to seen?

Why should change be incompatible with objective existence?

>>16744867
Suppose you had a ball, which had an intrinsic nature to be red. "Redness" was part of its character, and it could never change. Thus, it could never stop being red. It could never be blue. Ever. If you can make something that is red blue, however, then "redness" is not part of its intrinsic nature. Now apply that to all characteristics.

If things can change, then they are impermanent.

>>16744869
It isn't, Buddhism doesn't deny objective reality, or objective existence, it just argues about HOW that occurs. The idea that things that change are less real than things that don't is not a baseline assumption that all humans have (it's actually something that we can trace spreading out of a few places, with most people NOT adhering to this idea for most of human history). Buddhism denies that idea (that things that change are "less real").

But, if change CAN occur, then there is no intrinsic existence, because then the seen could never be unseen and vice versa.

>>16744779
He is using sophistic argumentation

When he writes
>>If "seer" and "seen" were objectively real categories, then you could never stop seeing something,
He is trying to argue against the Hindu idea of the soul as the eternal consciousness/observer by saying "if this seer was objectively real then you would never stop seeing everything". But this is a dumb point to make becasue but we actually cannot prove or show that we never in fact seeing/conscious, because nobody remembers the beginning of their consciousness/awareness in childhood, and we cannot retain any memory of whether we have it in sleep or not, but memory is falsifiable and unreliable; there are many other instances in life of us doing thing while conscious and being sentient but then us not having any memory of that after.

When he says
>and that which is unseen could never be seen.
He is confusing the seer with the seen as Buddhists are prone to do, the obvious answer to this is that the seer (consciousness) is enduring and unending while the seen objects are separate things which come into contact with consciousness and are revealed by its light for a momentary period before leaving its light.

>If "seeing" weren't a thing, and instead these arbitrary mental constructs in your head were the REALLY REAL reality, then the universe would be static and unchanging.
Here he is engaging in some strawman but I cannot even tell what this is supposed to mean

>>16744917
>advaita vedantin
>calling anyone else a sophist
lol

>>16744869
a lot of people adhere to this platonic idea that things that are "real" dont change. buddhists disagree, everything changes. morons and sophists say "oh no, that means buddhism says nothing is real!" because they're scared of accepting that things do in fact change.

>>16744770
Yes Prakrit is colloquial and Sanskrit is formal, but Sanskrit predates Prakrit by hundreds of years, Vedic Sanskrit was used around ~1500BCE while Prakrit started to be used around the 3rd century BC.

>Sanskrit is essentially Prakrit.
So no. You are wrong. You can read above and see pic related.

Kumarila's example ''ime samkhada dhamma sambhavanti sakarana akarana vinassanti'' shows that there are sanskrit words being employed like sambhavanti and pali ones too, unless you can point me in that sentence how they are not spelled wrong in Pali or in Sanskrit, whence ''samkhada'', what language is this?

>Plato was born around 200 years after the Buddha died.
I'm really ignorant concerning buddhist datings, can you show me any evidence of this? I can tell, at least, that Plato was born in the 5th century BCE.

>Two Truths doctrine
Then please explain me this doctrine. We see in Plato a treatment of all phenomena as illusory in dreams, becoming and so in the middle of being and non being, and the ontological status of beings qua Being itself, and above this The Good. If I'm not wrong, both Advaita Vedanta and Buddhist Two Truths Doctrine posit - illusory reality that is not real, becoming as neitehr real nor unreal and ultimate reality that is real reality itself.

>>16744962
>>16744770
here, forgot to attach the picture

>>16744917
>are you seriously saying that some things have to be understood through contemplation and not just through reason?
Yes.

>>16744962
If you're going to pick through a post to nitpick, could you at least not be a gigafag and quote the entire line? No one's going to see you take a single piece of a sentence divorced from the rest of the post out of context and argue against some poorly made strawman and say "ah yes, THIS man is intelligent, I can tell, because he has a double digit IQ!". It's bad enough that you don't know what you're talking about, but it just makes you look even dumber than the whole "lol the buddha didn't speak in sanskrit so he's wrong" thing does.

>>16744908
>Suppose you had a ball, which had an intrinsic nature to be red. "Redness" was part of its character, and it could never change. Thus, it could never stop being red. It could never be blue. Ever. If you can make something that is red blue, however, then "redness" is not part of its intrinsic nature. Now apply that to all characteristics.
The phenomenal world is conditioned and changing, so the seen can change, but the Absolute who sees is unconditioned and eternal.


You literally ignores basic metaphysics
Aristotle responded to this more than 2000 years ago with his act-potency distinction. Change is possible and only understandable with this metaphysical distinction, which refutes static (Parmenides) and dynamic (Heraclitus, Buddha) monisms.

>If things can change, then they are impermanent.
Yes, but change is only possible if it is supported by the Pure Act, that thing which does not and cannot change even in principle.

>>16744825
>If "seer" and "seen" are objectively real ontological categories, then how can anything ever change from seen to unseen, or unseen to seen?
That is a strawman, nobody who argues for the Atman argues for that, they do say that the Atman as self-revealing (i.e. self-seeing) consciousness is real, but that the Atman which is God through His power creates the world-appearance, which allows the eternal consciousness to be given changing experiences. The Consciousness is eternal, and because of this there can be changing things which are seen and then unseen in consciousness, without this persisting conscious witness there can be no perception of change.
>How could you ever see something new, if it cannot go from unseen to seen?
Nobody ever said something cannot go from unseen to seen, this is one of your many sophistic arguments which you seem to be unable to set down and relinquish, no matter how many times people call you out for using them and explain that they are meaningless.
>If something's fundamental nature is to be "seen", then it can never be anything but seen.
There is no fundamental thing to be seen, the only fundamental thing is the self-revealing consciousness of the self or Atman
>This is not the case, as we can obviously close our eyes, and things that were seen are no longer seen. If things can change, they lack an intrinsic unchanging nature OR they have an intrinsic nature that is totally irrelevant and exists in such a manner that it might as well not exist.
This reasoning can only ever apply to things external to consciousness, but not to consciousness itself, as changes they can only be detected in things which are external to the detector or observer

>>>16744787
>you don't know what you're talking about, and your doctrines are incoherent.
I don't agree with everything Surendranath Dasgupta writes in his 5-volume history of Indian philosophy, but I do agree with his statement here about the Buddhist no-self doctrine being incoherent, self-contradictory and self-evidently wrong. I take it that his expertise shows that there are educated experts on the topic who hold the same opinion on it as me.

"The Buddhist attempts at explaining this notion of self-identity by the supposition of the operation of two separate concepts are wholly inadequate, as has already been shown. The perception of self-identity can therefore be explained only on the basis of a permanently existing self" - S. Dasgupta

>In a year, you'll have adopted a different religious tradition to argue about.
No, because there is an unending supply of Buddhist crossposters from reddit whose false doctrines I shall continue to refute with the flaming sword of truth.

>You are unhappy, and your life decisions are why you are unhappy.
Nice projection, I feel wonderful

>It is entirely within your power to change this. Start by sitting down..., and watching your breath.
No, because I don't reify non-existence like you bozos do

>>16744016
It's very closely related. On one interpretation Buddhism is a Hindu heresy. It analogizes and borrows several Hindu concepts.

>>16744131

The singularity and distinction of the Self is neither Numeric nor Phenomenal. It is neither the one which the many are not nor that which is against that which is not, but the one which subsumes the many and in which all things are and are not.

>>16744770

>The Sanskrit language is much older than Pali.
Pali is an innovative language, just like Buddhism is an anti-traditional philosophy/religion
>The Pali language is considered to be a composite language having several dialects
Pali is a creole/mutt language, just like Buddhism is a mishmash philosophy/religion
>When comparing the two languages, Pali is considered to be simple.
Pali is the language of the simple-minded, just like Buddhism is the religion of the dim-witted urbanite
>The grammar is also considered to be similar, but Pali has a simplified grammar.
Pali has simplified grammar for brainlets, just like Buddhist teachings are a collection of slogans and repetitive phrases for easy consumption

Read more: Difference Between Sanskrit and Pali | Difference Between
http://www.differencebetween.net/miscellaneous/culture-miscellaneous/difference-between-sanskrit-and-pali/#ixzz6ZaDeqSXF

>>16744996
are you retarded? none of the quotes I greentexted was taken out of context. The first one was an entire sentence and simply false as I responded, the rest was irrelevant to the discussion. My retort was enough to invalidate all you said concerning that.

The second one was my literally asking: ''IM IGNORANT, PROVIDE ME SOME EVIDENCE''. how is this arguing against a poorly strawman?

the last was literally concerning the two truths doctrine which i even asked you about your explanation more fully in details.

you either have no response to anything i said or you are mentally ill.

>>16744630
I hold the Christian faith and metaphysics above all others, mainly because of the power of God in praxis, and the sublime apologia. But you're right. The meditation is terrible. It's why Hermeticism was invented, and probably why Gnosticism keeps coming back.

I'll tell you what though, by having a few canonical prayers that everyone does, all to venerate God and ask for His deliverance, Christianity provides every believer a sharp and ruthless sword against spiritual evil.

Demons exist.

>>16745099
this

>>16744962
The Two Truths Doctrine holds that there is a reality. However, this reality is made up of things that are composed of a gazillion influences from many, many, many other things. This is Indra's Net, where in order to describe a thing you have to describe everything else's relation to it. This is obviously non-sensical (how could you perfectly describe your own relationship to Pluto?). Such statements are "Ultimate Truths". However, if I were to tell you that I'm sitting on a chair, even though this statement is not 100% accurate, you still "get what I mean". These are Conventional Truths. We can hold many, many, many things "constant" and only focus on a small number of influences (the impact Pluto has on you is tiny, after all).

There is no illusion in the sense of a hologram. The "illusion" is our misunderstanding. It's an epistemological, not ontological, illusion. You saw the magician pull the coin from his ear, but he in fact had it hidden in his hand. The "illusion" is in your head (so to speak, the "thoughts are 'inside' your head" model is actually rejected by most Indian theories of the mind, both Buddhist and Hindu).

Depending on the specific school and tradition, however, there can be more to the Two Truths than this. After this basic epistemological usage, you HAVE to specify which school or tradition, because they do disagree (see: the autism that is Shentong vs Rentong, which only Vajrayana cares about).

>>16745020
lol

>>16745065
Read the thread.

a rock falling down a mountainside

I just realized that the Buddhist in this thread is literally taking this moldy argument from Dharmakīrti and applying it to consciousness: http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2014/03/dharmakirti-and-maimonides-on-divine.html?m=1

>>16745137
>lol

>>16744996
>are you seriously saying that some things have to be understood through contemplation and not just through reason?
Bro, just contemplate that shit, never mind that what I'm saying and continuing to argue about isn't logical

>>16745020
based post

>>16745137
Also, I mistyped, I meant to say that Buddha came about 100 years prior to Plato. Too many "twos" in that sentence. The general historical consensus from everything I've ever seen posits him as being born something between 550BC and 500BC, with Plato being born something around 425BC. So, while it's not quite a century, it's close enough, and we can certainly say that the Buddha predates Plato.

>>16744586
>overwhelmingly incorrect (asadhu) language, words of the Magadha or Dakshinatya languages, or even their dialects (tadopabhramsa). Therefore false compositions (asannibandhana), they cannot possibly be true knowledge (shastra)
Good to know, we can also discard your very wrong assertions about Brahman in the language of the ignorant Yavanas

>>16745137
>Read the thread.
I have, you've been btfo and you just keep making up these wild strawman arguments as a recourse, almost everything you are saying relies on sophism. The other anon just explained to you how the reasoning you are using falsely equates the phenomenal and the unconditioned Absolute and that it was refuted by Aquinas/Aristotle and all you could say was "lol"

>>16744753
>cosmological arguments made by Aristotle, Aquinas, al-Ghazali, Shankara etc establish that dependent origination cannot itself be the cause of the universe or samsara and that it could only exist were it caused by a beginningless cause like God/Brahman.
Your cosmological proof was retroactively refuted by Kant-acharya (and Nagarjuna). See also Sri Schopenhauer's commentaries.

>>16745114
>even in our grandest imaginings of a divine realm beyond the grasp of humanity, they are still stabbing eachother to death with sticks

>>16745144
Hold up: are you saying that a Buddhist was influenced by one of Buddhism's important and influential figures? Holy shit stop the fucking presses! What's next, a Catholic being influenced by Aquinas?!

>>16745140
based

>>16745194
No, it wasn't, if you want to maintain that it is so it is incumbent upon you to explain how, but you can't

>>16745201
>Hold up: are you saying that a Buddhist was influenced by one of Buddhism's important and influential figures? Holy shit stop the fucking presses! What's next, a Catholic being influenced by Aquinas?!
Omg you are so stupid. I don't blame you for basing yourself on a Buddhist argument, but for basing yourself on this argument, which is literally recognized as false and bad and has been refuted for centuries.

>>16745187
Have you considered that the reason that your doctrines time and time again are demonstrated as being incoherent is because they are, in fact, incoherent? If everyone around you is saying that you are wrong, they aren't making a "strawman" (whatever you think that's supposed to mean, because it's clear that whatever you think that term means, it's not what the rest of the world uses it to mean), perhaps it's just because you're wrong?

>>16745194
Anons on here don't really get the comsological argument. They misunderstand it's place in various thinkers body of work. You're talking to someone whose entire understanding of Aquinas comes from old cripchan meme images, he genuinely thinks that Aquinas started with the Five Ways and worked outwards.

>>16745194
>Kant-acharya
>Sri Schopenhauer
jej

>>16745194
>he believes that Kant refuted the Thomistic arguments
Cringe

>>16745237
You'll have to forgive me if I don't take endorsements from the National Review and the Daily Telegraph as being worth that much.

>>16744941
>a lot of people adhere to this platonic idea that things that are "real" dont change. buddhists disagree, everything changes. morons and sophists say "oh no, that means buddhism says nothing is real!" because they're scared of accepting that things do in fact change.
Even better than that is that these people didn't understand Plato in the first place. For Plato what we perceive is nothing other than degraded images of something completely perfect; we don't even see the real anyway. Later Platonists more explicitly influenced by Egyptian and Babylonian ideas also specifically allow for symbols, things which are not even like what they are meant to represent but simply give us a way of conceiving them, as they would otherwise be totally ineffable in conventional speech.

>>16745266
Omg bro you're so uncomfortable, are you switching to ad personam now? It's pathetic. The rebuttal of this rotten argument is in the link, exposed from A to Z. Cope harder faggot.

>>16745274
In this regard, I see a commonality between how Plato and the Buddha are both trying to solve a number of fundamental problems. There's a bizarre sort of symmetry that arises as they come up with remarkably similar conclusions that are completely divorced from each other in how they actually go about making those conclusions. Both thinkers come up with Sunyata, but the Buddha does it by saying that everything is constantly changing, whereas Plato comes up with a form of dualism.

>>16745263
>nooo there can't be eternity there has to be an uncaused cause which has to be god because the way I think as a human in terms of time and space is privileged enough to know it's true

>>16745321
>the Buddha does it by saying that everything is constantly changing
Refuted by Aristotle

>>16745237
>hah hah this buddhist guy didnt consider Maimonidism :^)
why would a buddhist care about aristotelian physics? you dont seriously think buddhists use aristotelianism, do you?

>>16745328
Thank you for demonstrating that you are unable to understand simple metaphysical reasoning. Is this the sangha level?

>>16745333
Are you trolling or are you really stupid?

>>16745201
>was influenced by one of Buddhism's important and influential figures?
Dharmakirti and his Vijnanavada theories were completely destroyed and BTFO for all eternity by the great Adi Shankara, RIP. You are following the thinking of a sophistic solipsist who got refuted by one of the great luminaries of Hindu philsophy.


>It cannot be argued that just as in illusion or dream consciousness assumes the form of the object and projects it as objective, without there being any real object, similarly in waking state too consciousness itself appears in the form of objects, for the simple reason that dream and waking states cannot be placed on a par. Things seen in a dream are sublated in waking state. Their falsity is realised when the dreamer awakes. But world-objects are never contradicted in empirical life. Moreover, the projection of the object in illusion or dream is possible because of our experience of the real object in waking life. Without the object being ‘given* to us in waking state, even its form cannot appear in illusion or dream. Again, illusion and dreams are private, while waking life is public. Even if this world is an illusion, it is a transcendental illusion, and even if it be a dream, it is a cosmic dream. It is wrong to treat dream and waking states on the same level on the pretext that both are experienced through consciousness. Even the Vijnanavada Buddhist realises the difference between the two and what is directly experienced cannot be refuted by intellectual jugglery.1

>Again, the difference in ideas is due to the difference in objects. The idea of a jar is different from the idea of a cloth, because ajar is different from a cloth. This means that an idea is different from an object. The Buddhist assertion that the plurality of ideas is due to the plurality of impressions and not due to the plurality of objects is wrong, because if objects do not exist then impressions themselves cannot arise. Moreover, impressions are mental modifications and they need a self to inhere. But in Vijnanavada there is no substratum where impressions may inhere. Alayavijnana too which is held to be momentary cannot be, like individual cognitions (pravrtti-vijnana), the substratum of impressions.

>>16745357

>Those Vijnanavadins (Svatantra-Vijnanavadins like Dharmakirti) who uphold the reality of the momentary vijnanas only make the position worse by degenerating into solipsism. Shankara says that his criticism of the theory of momentariness also applies to Vijnanavada. Momentary ideas cannot ideate themselves. They can neither apprehend nor be apprehended by themselves. There must be a permanent self to synthesise the fleeting ideas and give them unity and meaning. If the Vijnanavada Buddhist replies that the idea is self-conscious and is self-shining like a luminous lamp, he is wrong, for to say that the momentary idea illuminates itself is as absurd as to say that fire burns itself.

>Infact, it is only the eternal Self which is self-luminous and self-proved as the undeniable foundation of all our knowledge. A momentary idea which arises and falls cannot be treated as self-shining. An idea is apprehended by the self. An idea is just like an object in relation to the knowing self, who is the subject. If the Vijnanavadin Buddhist says that by idea he means pure consciousness and that we Vedantins too who accept the ultimate reality of pure consciousness accept his view, he is utterly mistaken because for us an idea is only like an object to be illumined and known by the self.

>It is the self, not a momentary idea, which is pure consciousness. Again, if the Vijnanavadin rejoins that our transcendental Self which is self-shining and self-proved is only his idea in disguise, he is wrong, because whereas his ideas are many and momentary and are no better than scattered objects originating and dying away and depending on the self for being illumined and known, our Self, on the other hand, is non-dual and eternal and is the transcendental Subject, the foundation of all knowledge and experience, which synthesises these scattered ideas into a unity and illuminates them and makes them known. If the momentary vijnana were the only reality and there is no self, then there would be no experience at all. And all empirical life, morality, spiritual discipline, bondage and liberation, etc., will crumble down.

How will Buddhists ever recover?

>>16745321
The jury is out on what Plato really thinks. His character of Socrates is executed for atheism and his defense basically is that god told him to skeptically harass people to help them become enlightened. There's no question Platonism evolved into theism but so did various pathways of Buddhism, but in both cases they are highly alien to popular modern views of god as a magical person presiding over a magical place.

>>16745238
>If everyone around you is saying that you are wrong
only you have been arguing that but you have been using false and sophistic reasoning as I have pointed out in this thread

>>16745341
>Is this the sangha level?
It even sometimes gets that bad among the people considered to be the major Buddhist philosophers too. It's amazing how some things transcend cultures and that sophism is the same in both Greece and India.

When you understand that in BTFO of Heraclitus, Aristotle destroys Buddhism with

>>16745397
>sophism is things I don't like
You know you can't prove your first cause. Any system with a first cause has to rely on revelation at some point. That isn't to say Buddhism doesn't have revelation. But neither does it affirm that there is a first cause of the universe who is god.

>>16745429
>You know you can't prove your first cause
Kek. I've fed this troll enough.

See you next time, vedantabro!

>>16745367
>our Self, on the other hand, is non-dual and eternal and is the transcendental Subject, the foundation of all knowledge and experience, which synthesises these scattered ideas into a unity and illuminates them and makes them known. If the momentary vijnana were the only reality and there is no self, then there would be no experience at all. And all empirical life, morality, spiritual discipline, bondage and liberation, etc., will crumble down.
See how you switch from Self (the absolute) to self (the conventional)? If you are going to attack Buddhism over linguistics this is fair game. Buddhism accepts there is a conventional reality, just as you do, but the absolute it posits is not Brahman. Your only proof for Brahman is that the texts preserved by the brahmin caste say so.

>>16745447
peace out homie

>>16745321
There is no dualism in Plato and as >>16745331 said, and you would know Plato did say before him if you had read Plato, there can't be constant change without Being/Actualization.

>>16745429
>You know you can't prove your first cause
A gift : https://www.youtube.com/playlist?app=desktop&list=PLpzmRsG7u_gpMogZpIcZnS0BsD3z8_x3n

In the future, at least try to understand (know?) the arguments you are criticizing.

>>16745200

>>16745456
>See how you switch from Self (the absolute) to self (the conventional)?
it didn't

>>16745200

>>16745429
read plato and aristotle, you dont need nothing more to have an understanding of metaphysics.

>>16745354
no, but im thinking that you are both. why would a buddhist give a shit about aristotelian potentiality/actuality? im reading the article, and it comes down to
>dharmakirti argues that God doesnt make sense because he would have to go be either always a cause or always not a cause if he had an intrinsic nature
we can ignore the idea of "well he doesnt have an intrinsic nature or doesnt have an intrinsic nature that covers him always causing or always not causing" because then that isn't God so who cares.

at this point, though, feser diverges from the buddhist framework (where dharmakirti is arguing against other buddhists and a sort of assumed hindu opponent) and enters the aristotelian one, ultimately citing aristotelian physics and the potentiality-actuality, wherein obviously there has to be a God, that's why aristotle has the prime movers, because his system literally does not make sense without them.

but im wondering why you think this is a slam dunk, when a buddhist would just outright reject the entirety of aristotelian physics (see: the fundamental verses of the middle way). i get that feser is a leftcath and so he is only using this as a historical curiosity, but i dont get why YOU think this is a win.

>>16745466
Start with Lysis.

>>16745200
>only the material world has conflict or an ecosystem

>>16745544
lmao you have never read Plato, if so you would understand what the forms are and how plato states all the time through various metaphors their relation with tie instances

>>16745520
Haven't read Aristotle yet. I do prefer Platonic monism to the Brahmanist monism (if we can use such terms), since the notion of a Demiurge absolves the One of having to create anything or be moved to create anything, so there's that.

>>16745549
>this heckin divine chungus is totally worthy of your spiritual upvote

man fuck your divine bullshit if they can't figure out basic conflict resolution are they really worthy or worship

I dont feel like ive become more knowledgeable about buddhism after this thread

300 faggots confirmed idiots...

>>16746026
No one ever does, its all very masturbatory

>>16746179
oh well

>>16746211
Its fun to watch ancient rivalries play out with modern larpers

>>16743935
>Self-awareness is also dividing into object and subject, as you can only be self-aware of something.
Nope. That's the magic of self-awareness. Subject-object distinction is like the Irish: it need not apply.

I can see why the hylics might grind their gears on this.

>>16744012
I wonder how many people get that meme's reference.

>>16745890
>God didn't set me up with my imaginary utopia FUCK YOU DAD

No life without struggle my friend. Kind of like "the mass of the proton needs to be so and so" there must be strife in Creation for us to form. Think of it as The Anthropic Principle of Having to Fight For Anything Worthwhile.

Ahem
FUCK BRAHMINS