/lit/ - Literature

>>17426830
No philosopher takes verificationism seriously now. Buddhist beliefs are perfectly verifiable anyway.

>>17426830

any ug krishnamurti discussion/lecture, although he is more of an theosophist/advaitan

>>17426830
>unverifiable truth claims?
Such as?

>>17426868
>Buddhist beliefs are perfectly verifiable anyway.

>except for pratityasamutpada
>except for rebirth
>except the paths of stream-entrant and so forth
>except for the doctrine of no-self (if it was, who would verify it?)
>except for the part about Buddha being omniscient and remembering past lives and having superpowers
>except for the elaborate cosmology described by Buddha involving various hells and heaven realms, hungry ghosts etc

>>17426830
The Munchausen Trilemma + the problem of induction.

>>17427111
All of those things are 100% verifiable. You just have to not be a fedora.

>>17427111
>>17427161
Even atheist neckbeards know what when you die you turn into a tree

>>17427111
>things aren't dependent on other things
>births are not conditioned by previous lives
>we can't learn anything that would help us to become free from delusion and pain
>my self is permanent and has a unique esssence
>having a galaxybrain isn't a superpower
>not having a personal cosmology or umwelt, etc.
Imagine being this lost

>>17427211
No, in your rush to write a greentext you lost sight of the original context was that all I said was that none of those Buddhists beliefs are empirically verifiable

>>17427227
Is empirical verification as an epistemology empirically verifiable?

>>17427248
yes

>>17427258
wrong

>>17427278
If you hold that position then why would you claim or defend the position that "buddhist beliefs are perfectly verifiable"? What is your foundation for saying that they are verifiable if empirical verification cannot be verified?

>>17427111

a better question would be: “how would empirical verification help me understand or manipulate any of these concepts?”

>>17427304
You were the one who mentioned empirical verification.

>>17427227
>none of those Buddhists beliefs are empirically verifiable
The known can’t touch upon the known. You dont say...

>>17427362
by what other methods of verification of those doctrines are you proposing?

>>17427227
>>17427369
Cant touch upon the unknown***

>>17426830
your buddha sleeps, eyes closed.

>>17427372
>uuh I just sit around and meditate until I don't feel anything man... it's like... real empty man.... like nada.... that's how you know it's real

>>17427372
Meditation unironically. But something like dependent origination is just axiomatic and doesn't even need justification. Moreover, the burden of proof is on the one who asserts that there is a permanent self, not on the Buddhist who denies it.

>>17427490
>But something like dependent origination is just axiomatic and doesn't even need justification.
That's precisely it though, Buddhist logic is circular because it involves the uncritical acceptance of doctrines which contain inherent contradictions like pratityasamutpada (see pic related), they are just asserted as axioms without any justification.

>>17427211
No they're not And fuck you. Mega cringe.

>>17427490
>dependent origination is just axiomatic and doesn't even need justification
May I introduce you to my fella parmenides?

>>17427536
>see this screencap of my previous post, which refutes the thing I am concern-trolling about

>>17427556
>the beginningless contingent origination of things just happens for no reason without them being sustained, set in motion or allowed to take place by any non-contingent thing, what no you can't point out why that's inherently illogical, t-that's concern trolling!!

>>17427536
>Buddhist logic is circular because it involves the uncritical acceptance of doctrines which contain inherent contradictions
But the first thing buddha realizes is that enlightenment can’t be taught. Unquestioning acceptance works only insofar as the devotee has faith, the particular practice depending on the devotee (to an atheist you say god is real, to a theist you say god doesn’t exist) The doctrines are certainly not written in stone, and certainly are not as relevant to our time as they were in their time.

Now as for the contradictions. Words can only ever give you a slice of the pie of truth, so there will always be other words that contradict it.

>>17427582
>noooo you can't just have cycles
>also sky daddy is my true immortal self and I am just piloting an atmangelion without knowing it

>>17427603
>also sky daddy is my true immortal self and I am just piloting an atmangelion without knowing it
That's true though. Read Plotinus

>>17427609
Ruh-roh looks like we can't find empirical evidence for that either. I guess Buddhism isn't refuted by theism after all

>>17427621
>either
Literally my point though. Do buddhists engage with that fact at all?

>>17426868
>No philosopher takes verificationism seriously now
Can you verify that? :)

>>17427640
Well you're not wrong that there are holes, or leaps of faith in Buddhist discourse and logic. So Buddhism conveniently says that wisdom is non-conceptual, that clinging to metaphysical views is not expedient for those aspiring to achieve nirvana, and so forth. But as for the other guy, the indo-thomism he thinks refutes Buddhism would have all the same problems for a skeptic as Buddhism does (potentially more since Buddhists deny immortal creator gods while theists assume they necessarily exist otherwise nihilism follows).

>>17427652
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verificationism#Decline

>>17427582
Why is it inherently illogical?

>>17427603
>>noooo you can't just have cycles
Exactly, you still have avoided explaining how pratityasamutpada doesn't result in a paradox equivalent to a daughter giving birth to her own mother. Buddhism is refuted by exactly such nonsensical doctrines as these. To admit that the the twelve separate links in Pratityasamutpada existing as they did in the ordered manner is already to presuppose something which has to be caused by something other than pratityasamutpada in order for there to not be something which is logically impossible. And this is only just one of the many insightful criticisms of Buddhist doctrine made by Adi Shankara.

>>17427671
You have merely shown that many or even the majority don't, but your statement was that "no philosopher" takes it seriously. That statement is impossible to verify unless you have tested the entire set of philosophers :) :)

>>17427690
Sorry, if your answer to "everything has a cause" is "what if everything that had a cause had a cause?" it's even less logically coherent

>>17427673
see the picture posted here >>17427536

>>17427690
I would be careful about reading Advaita Vedanta interpretations such as Shankara's as a commentary to the Upanishads, they are extremely reliant on Buddhist philosophy (Shankara is called a "cryptobuddhist" by most Hindus, and most scholars agree). If you want to read the Upanishads, work through them with editions and commentaries that aren't sectarian, or at least read an interpretation that is closer to the original meaning of the Upanishads, rather than Shankara's 9th century AD quasi-buddhism.

>>17427710
>>17427556
Like clockwork
>>17427714
Also like clockwork

>>17427708
>Sorry, if your answer to "everything has a cause" is "what if everything that had a cause had a cause?"
That's not my answer. The moment you point out one of the fundamental contradictions in Buddhism to a Buddhist, they quickly try to squirm away and insist upon suddenly making bad faith strawman arguments like the sophists they are about whoever pointed out that contradiction in Buddhist doctrine, like a rat in a trap trying to peel itself away, but whatever strawman arguments you make about whatever side represented by whomever pointed out that contradiction in Buddhist doctrine, it doesn't at all change the point that there is still that unresolved contradiction in Buddhist doctrine.

>>17427693
Don't reddit me. I am too tired for this.

>>17427758
You are citing a theologian whose entire system is predicated on the divine revelation in the Upanishads to disprove the idea of causation without a first cause. You are literally just tacking God on to the beginning of dependent origination to sell Dependent Origination+.

>>17426830
No because the basis of buddhism is to experience things for yourself

>>17427758
How about you explain your argument in a syllogism instead of larping as an ancient brahmin then?

>>17427714
based

>>17427758
>You are citing a theologian whose entire system is predicated on the divine revelation in the Upanishads to disprove the idea of causation without a first cause.
Completely irrelevant in this case, the criticism could have been made by anyone, from Plato, Aristotle, me, my neighbor, to the dude driving a bus nearby; it's just basic logic. It's an intuitive and easy to understand explanation with illuminating metaphors of how pratityasamutpada is logically impossible and wrong. Shankara, like the rest of the classical theist tradition, accepts and argues for the position that all contingent things require a sentient non-contingent source. But that's neither here nor there, because the underlying logical contradiction in pratityasamutpada being discussed could have been pointed out by anyone from Hitler, Trump, Lao-Tzu, Osho, it doesn't matter, it remains the same unresolved logical impossibility at the heart of Buddhist doctrine no matter who points it out.

>>17427782
meant to cite you here >>17427869

>>17427782
Are there better versions of Vedanta that don't do this?

>>17427869
>all contingent things require a sentient non-contingent source
Correct. And, as literally everyone who has ever read any argument for a transcendent creator has pointed out, that source was created by source^2, which was created by source^3, and so on in an infinite regress, because the idea of a transcendent creator is inherently incoherent.

>>17427899
>he's still debating guenonfag
anon pls

>>17427869
There does not *have to be* a first cause and we cannot empirically verify one anyhow and it is furthermore of no practical consequence. Science has the same problem as theology. You go from stones to atoms to particles to quanta or from planets to gravity to the big bang and hit a wall where you cannot have reality beyond our capacity to imagine further dissection. A fence is put up and declared the solution to the problem of the indefinite.

>>17427909
Yea he comes here every fucking day to make a thread like this and have this argument, have to learn to spot him

>>17427782
>whose entire system is predicated on the divine revelation in the Upanishads to disprove the idea of causation without a first cause
That's wrong though, Shankara uses similar cosmological arguments as Aquinas to rule out the universe not being caused by God or Brahman, Shankara disproves the Buddhist doctrine pratityasamutpada as being an acceptable alternative to God being the source of existence because Shankara is the one who pointed out that it results in the same paradox of the daughter giving birth to her own mother. This Buddhist doctrine of pratityasamutpada is not debunked by Upanishadic revelation but by its own underlying logical impossibility that Shankara pointed out, which anyone who is not coping hard because of a sunk-cost fallacy can self-evidently see.

>>17427930
>anyone can plainly see there is a first cause
If they are extremely lazy or authoritatian or both sure

>>17427921
He's easily recognizable, his threads always ask a loaded question about buddhism with heavy implications against it, and then he samefags it to oblivion
Just make him seethe by telling him he's a cryptobuddhist and move on

>>17427941
Call him an indo-thomist it usually forces him to write a newish response

>>17427944
>a newish response
I never read his posts anyway

>>17427889
Yes, literally all. Shankara is only really important to Hindu thought in that he starts the idea of unified Hindu metaphysical speculation in response to Buddhist metaphysical speculation, but other than that he's more or less a deadend as all of Hindu philosophy amounts to just explaining to Shankara why he is wrong.

His system is incoherent, he ends up taking a bizarre stance on the illusion-delusion debate (tl;dr he posits an ontological dualism wherein rocks, trees, cats, and chariots are not real and are made of nothing), his explanation of consciousness is absolutely laughable and illogical, and he doesn't really "get" causality. His understanding of "illusion" is also laughable, and he constantly contradicts himself on it. Although it's not important to us Westerners, he also upsets a lot of Hindus when he denies the existence of deities other than Brahman, such as Indra, Krishna, Shakti, etc.

More glaringly, he says parts of the Vedas are wrong. Not "have been interpreted incorrectly" but rather that the passage itself are just flat out wrong and it's incorrect to include them in the Vedas. This isn't how the Vedas works, however, as the Vedas are a revealed text taken by Hindus as unquestionable. If it's in the Vedas, it's right. You either have to accept all of the Vedas, or throw it all out and say that none of it has any special status (the Buddha does this). Shankara's pick-and-choose hermeneutics, sometimes plucking sentences out of a passage, lead to his ideas just being laughed out of Hindu intellectualism.

He does, however, lead to Ramanuja, who takes his ideas and makes an actually coherent system out of it (for example, he rejects the stupidity of positing both ontological dualism and monism, so that Brahman is in fact in everything in varying amounts). Dvaita Vedanta also comes about in response to Shankara rejecting the parts of the Vedas and the Upanishads that suggest a dualistic relationship between Brahman and man.

>>17427941
The cryptobuddhism thing really gets to him, I love that everyone knows how common a response to advaita it is thanks to him.

>>17427937
>>anyone can plainly see there is a first cause
Nice strawmanning again, but that's not what I said, I'm simply talking about an unresolved logical contradiction in Buddhist doctrine which is how we know it refutes Buddhism. That's not the same as proving that there must be a first cause. That the latter is true follows quite naturally from how all of the alternative explanations to God being the source have all been refuted by the various cosmological arguments made by Shankara, Aquinas and various other thinkers.

>>17428007
Non-theistic explanations for phenomena are refuted because of something about a daughter giving birth to her mother? Holy based, that's just genderbent Christianity.

>>17426868
I think it's more in the group of "it makes a lot of sense though it cannot be proven".
Everything moving in self-containing circles is something we see here on earth and it makes a lot more sense than things popping in and out of existence.
But just because it's believable doesn't mean it's true. Maybe reality isn't logical.

>>17427952
Your whole post is wrong, just embarrassing

>His system is incoherent, he ends up taking a bizarre stance on the illusion-delusion debate (tl;dr he posits an ontological dualism wherein rocks, trees, cats, and chariots are not real and are made of nothing),
False, the inert world objects in Advaita are conventionally-existing and empirically-existing appearances caused by the luminescent Brahman's power of maya. They differ from completely non-existent things because they are experienced and completely non-existent things are not experienced. All illusion presupposes an existing real knower and a real substratum for the illusion to be projected upon, the world objects are this relatively real illusion projected upon the basis absolute reality of Brahman which allows them to be experienced.
>his explanation of consciousness is absolutely laughable and illogical
Advaita Vedanta and Shankara actually solve the interaction problem of mind-body dualism by positing that consciousness is non-volitional and simply illumines like light, and so thus there is no interaction between consciousness and brain states which needs to be explained, because consciousness doesn't control the mind and body that it illuminates with its light, it is the reflection of consciousness in the intellect which seems to.
>and he doesn't really "get" causality.
He understood it well enough to point out how pratityasamutpada is wrong and that Buddhism is refuted by it alone without having recourse to any of its many other silly and illogical doctrines
>His understanding of "illusion" is also laughable, and he constantly contradicts himself on it.
Shankara does not contradict himself, his position is consistent, for Shankara all illusion involves the superimposition of the unreal on the real, he never contradicts himself on this.
>Although it's not important to us Westerners, he also upsets a lot of Hindus when he denies the existence of deities other than Brahman, such as Indra, Krishna, Shakti, etc.
stupid and gay gaslighting, He doesn't even do this in his works but he refers constantly to them with adoration
>More glaringly, he says parts of the Vedas are wrong. Not "have been interpreted incorrectly" but rather that the passage itself are just flat out wrong and it's incorrect to include them in the Vedas.
False, you can't cite the passage where because he never says that once

>>17428153
kek this is what you live for

>>17427952
interesting post, made me actually interested in madhva for the first time now that you put it that way. don't respond to guenonfag pls, feel free to make recommendations though

>>17428037
1) Pratityasamutpada involves 12 links existing in a relationship where they sustain and give rise to one another
2) To presuppose these 12 links existing in the specific aggregation that allows them to give to one another in an ordered manner is to consider them as already existing in such an aggregation as can only have been established by a cause, just as the 12 links if imagined as threads cannot exist *as* an aggregated whole in the shape of a cloth until someone decides to form them into one using various means.
3) The organization of the 12 links in their form as pratityasamutpada cannot be admitted to just spontaneously spring into existence already in that aggregated form because there is no cause which will permit it to exist in that form, but to have them retain that pre-existing relationship is to introduce something which must have been caused by something.
4) This pre-existing design in pratityasamutpada cannot be caused by pratityasamutpada itself, because it would already have to exist as such in the untied form with its 12 links intact and functioning in order to cause that aggregation of itself, but this is logically impossible, just as something which depends upon its parts being united cannot assemble itself from disparate parts left scattered for the reason that when are separated it is unable to act and thus assemble itself.
5) With this, we can rule out as logically impossible the Buddhist explanation that instead of God there was just pratityasamutpada for all beginningless samsara, and that's what accounts for us being here in the as conscious beings.
6) Vedāntic Hinduism and other religious and metaphysical doctrines involving God don't suffer from this paradox like Buddhism does.

>>17428168
>kek this is what you live for
to see sophistry defeated is its own reward

>>17426830
>unverifiable

>>17426830
>the fact that they make unverifiable truth claims?
Why are you faggots like this ? You think it’s verifiable that Jesus took on the punishment of sin ? No religion is verifiable it’s a belief system , Not a cure for polio, it’s not meant to be verified. People were completely content with their beliefs systems for thousands of years, this verification bullshit is so gay and Lame and modern.

>>17428260
You are just giving increasingly elaborate arguments for theism, your preferred flavor of indo-thomism, still advocating for Dependent Origination+, which does not solve any metaphysical problem with dependent origination that was lacking for empirical evidence. On the contrary your view introduces an even more just-so answer to causation which is of course, God did it.

>>17428293
>unverifiable
I know dude, this is the most fucking Reddit thread I’ve ever seen

I understood maybe 3 words out of this entire thread. Good job, better than a rate my stack thread.

>>17428361
Don't be intimidated, it's a wikipedia level "debate" between one guy who has been having it for years and other people going "uhh that's retarded." It's over buddhism 101 issues.

>>17428408
Yes, but there's lots of fancy words and sentences. It'd take me at least a month to understand them all to a basic level.

>>17428408
t. coping beyond belief

still haven't figured out how to make pratityasamutpada not a logical impossibility huh?

Lots of Buddhist arrogance in this thread. Worse than Christians! And this - coming from a religion which extols, in some of its earliest texts, the virtue of lacking views.

>>17428336
>>17428293
Fuck off you insecure faggots.

>>17428336
>People were completely content with their beliefs systems for thousands of years, this verification bullshit is so gay and Lame and modern.
Yeah I suppose Pyrrho and the Academic Sceptics never existed

>>17427899
>And, as literally everyone who has ever read any argument for a transcendent creator has pointed out, that source was created by source^2, which was created by source^3, and so on in an infinite regress,
This is a poor argument, because the fact that it is a transcendent creator who possesses an eternal, undecaying immortal nature and life as the source of everything obviates the need for that creator to be created by any further thing, which is not true of contingent things. Only contingent things need a cause for them assumed, this is not true of that which is all-powerful and the origin of time, space and causation while remaining beyond them.

>>17428457
>Yeah I suppose Pyrrho and the Academic Sceptics never existed
Sure they existed, but if The majority of people throughout history needed religion to be verifiable, it wouldn’t exist

>>17428530
Appeal to majority?

>>17428460
>infinite regress is a poor argument against god because god cannot be caused
The barren woman's son cannot be caused either, much like the daughter birthing her mother.

>>17428552
Religion is a communal institution it requires large groups of people to buy into it . The fact that large groups of people do buy into something with no need for verification shows that most don’t need it . You can be a little dork and throw fallacies at me all day , But the fact that religion is alive at all shows that people don’t need verification.

>>17428530
>>17428552
The standards for empirical verification are extremely high among moderns. Ancient people quite literally saw the world differently, as animate with spirits and forces while modern people think these are laws of nature, science etc. Skeptics were in a way, philosophers from the future, but even today skepticism of 'scientifically minded' people, or what have you, is its own dogmatism, the likes of which would be attacked by a Pyrrho or Sextus Empiricus just the same as any other school

>>17428587
Why does that matter? Besides many of those people believe that they do come into contact with things that verify their beliefs - little daily coincidences, miracles they’ve heard about, etc.

>>17428603
>Ancient people quite literally saw the world differently,
Then if you’re subscribing to an ancient belief system, don’t you have to let go of a bit of modernist thinking. These beliefs systems weren’t founded upon being empirically proven, as you said, So don’t you have to let go of that thinking in order to fully embrace the belief system?

>>17426830
>unverifiable truth claims?
The Buddha basically gives a Pascal's Wager type argument towards the Buddhist life, addressing the possible existence of gods, rebirth and nirvana. I don't remember in which sutta though because I read it in a compilation. TLDR; even if everything is bullshit at least you'll live life to it's fullest.

>>17427111
Atheists should have no problem accepting "no-self".

>>17428603
>>17428642
Ancient philosophers like Plato however believed their proofs were verifiable. Socrates seems to have faith in the idea that his elenchus leads to correct beliefs

>>17428570
Yes, but a God can be conceived of who exists eternally and who is thus uncaused, but a barren woman's son or a daughter giving birth to their mother cannot exist eternally without any cause. Thus there is a difference.

>>17428460
Right, of course, because the holy book says so. Mine says that your transcendent creator, as was pointed out, was created by source^2, which was created by source^3, and so on in an infinite regress.

We can, of course, easily construct arguments in favor of uncreated universes, as for example Aristotle does, however.

>>17428657
They don't, that's why they glom onto Buddhism like so many flies onto garbage

>>17428642
You would if you do, or you would have to attempt to reconcile it with new information, like the life-size simulacrum of Noah's Ark filled with dionsaur dioramas in Kentucky does

>>17428670
>Mine says that your transcendent creator, as was pointed out, was created by source^2, which was created by source^3, and so on in an infinite regress.
None of the links in dependent origination or dependent origination itself are admitted to be non-contingent and eternally existing things, contingent things by nature cannot give rise to themselves in a cycle because this cycle is by nature is needs a non-contingent source for it to take place. When non-contingency is admitted, the need for sourcehood is eliminated, with God or Brahman admitted to be non-contingent, there is thus a difference from dependent origination which as contingent needs a source to exist and God which doesn't. Something that exists eternally without a beginning is uncaused.
>We can, of course, easily construct arguments in favor of uncreated universes, as for example Aristotle does, however.
We could, but there are contradictions in saying that things are uncreated and eternal, and at the same time that they move or have parts that move

>>17428669
Yeah I can make things up in my head too without empirical evidence. How are you proving here exactly that adding god as a backstop to endless causation makes stuff any more certified fresh blue check verified 100% GMO free?

>>17428705
a cycle by definition has no beginning or no end, anon.

>>17428712
The very impossible notion of a daughter giving birth to her own mother, and the very impossibility of a barren woman's son reveal those to be false concepts which are not real, they are logical impossibilities which don't take place. There is nothing contradictory about the concept 'God' that invalidates itself in the same way those two do.

>>17428663
Plato, and the Skeptics for that matter, weren't common people accepting religious narratives but philosophers and metaphysicians. The point is that ancients had different standards than we do for accepting narratives. Today one would be considered schizo for suggesting tutelary deities guarded the well-being of a city, but this was obvious to people back then or they would not have had so many festivals and temples and displays of devotion to the idea. Today we feel something similar about saving the environment or democracy but we do not call either gods.

>>17428730
Sure there is. I can observe everything has at least a proximate cause. God, who I cannot observe, is also said to be without cause. This is at best an antinomy and at worst you describing your imagination as absolute reality.

>>17428728
Time cannot be eternal, both the Torah and the Vedas say otherwise.

>>17428728
Yes, but that doesn't address whether the cycle is contingent on something other than itself. When you are talking about pratityasamutpada the cycle cannot even proceed because there is no way for the 12 links to acquire the coherent mutual-relationship and aggregation which allows them to function as 12 links in order. It cannot be caused by pratityasamutpada as that requires this aggregation be in place already to do anything, but if its not caused by pratityasamutpada then something exists outside of, and metaphysically anterior to pratityasamutpada, on which it is contingent, and then in that case the buddhists have it all wrong.

>>17428741
Yes, but where are you going with this? I agree with everything you say about scientific and democratic dogmatism. But does that rescue Buddhism?

>>17428764
Phenomena don't have to be real to appear. The point of the teaching was not to sastify your demand that everything has a first cause but to demonstrate that phenomena appear based on other phenomena and we should not regard any as permanent or essential. Why would we want a first cause for illusions that explains how the illusions relate to other illusions? What good does it do to believe god causes us to see illusions? We are trying to understand how they relate to one another, not blame an external actor for setting them in motion. Since Buddhist dogma refutes the Great Lord elsewhere, discourse on dependent origination does not typically bother with it.

>>17428764
Correct. Nagarjuna goes over this. The entire idea of "causation" at all is inherently absurd as anything but a Conventional Truth. This is precisely why the Buddha taught Dependent Origination.

>>17428755
>I can observe everything has at least a proximate cause. God, who I cannot observe, is also said to be without cause.
That only speaks to the limits of your own individual knowledge about causes, that's not something inherent about God which is premised on contradiction from the get-go, like the other terms are

>>17428770
Buddhism is ultimately a religious system from classical India with medieval modifications and modern reinterpretations and colonial imaginations and other such conjunctions, so the answer is... maybe? I do consider the radical skepticism of Nagarjuna, Aryadeva, and Chandrakirti to be strikingly 'modern' sounding but it is interesting if not ironic that this school of prasangika Madhyamika was preserved by the notoriously animist Tibetans, who lived under a caesaropope until the 1950s. But yes you can't really have rebirth and nirvana if you are a strict materialist or empiricist. It does require some idealism, idealism is a narrative, and then we are back in time once again. But can we really abolish narratives? This is something for the people who reject everything religious to answer, not for Buddhists or Hindus or Christians or Muslims etc.

>>17428845
>God is not just another term
Oh but it is!

>>17428835
Where in Nagarjuna is this?

>>17426830
In zen buddhism it's mainly based on personal experience you can just disregard literally all of the books and just meditate

>>17428915
Have you read the Mulamadhyamaka-karika? That's practically the thesis. If phenomena weren't empty, causation wouldn't even be conventionally possible.

>>17428807
>Phenomena don't have to be real to appear.
That's because the nature of appearances are to not be what they appear to be anon. Appearances never arisen though without an existing being who apprehends them, nor without an existing substratum for them to inhere in.
>The point of the teaching was not to sastify your demand that everything has a first cause but to demonstrate that phenomena appear based on other phenomena and we should not regard any as permanent or essential.
I'm aware, but this cannot just be the cause of itself going back in a cycle without beginning, because that results in logical impossibilities, it necessarily must be caused if at all by a non-contingent being or source who stands outside and maintains the cycle.
>Why would we want a first cause for illusions that explains how the illusions relate to other illusions?
If a doctrine gives an explanation of arising, causation, dependent co-origination and so on that results in this unresolvable contradiction, then that doctrine stands self-refuted. It's from discerning contradictions that you engage in the discrimination (viveka) of truth from falsehood.
>What good does it do to believe god causes us to see illusions?
Different religions draw different moral conclusions from the timeless truth that only something equivalent to God explains the source of everything
>We are trying to understand how they relate to one another, not blame an external actor for setting them in motion.
Maybe this is how it started, but Buddhists majorly err in then crossing the line and then saying "therefore, there is nothing outside causing them, and there cannot be"
>Since Buddhist dogma refutes the Great Lord elsewhere
It doesn't

>>17428936
Nope, I am just an observer. I was hoping there would be some spot in it where its in condensed form that I could read because it sounds interesting.

>>17428885
Thanks for the discussion anon I’m to o sleepy to keep it up though

>>17428938
>this cannot just be the cause of itself going back in a cycle without beginning, because that results in logical impossibilities, it necessarily must be caused if at all by a non-contingent being or source who stands outside and maintains the cycle.
Doesn't your father have a father? Or did you give birth to him like you are giving birth to God in asserting that there is a first cause?

>>17428835
>This is precisely why the Buddha taught Dependent Origination.
Nagarjuna fails to explain how dependent origination can give rise to things like samsara, which it cannot by itself.

>>17428906
No.

>>17428931
Sounds based, what are some books about zen buddhism?

>>17428953
Karikas are already highly condensed as a form of literature. I recommend the Sideritis and Katsura translation. If you skip their interlinear notes which are collated from the extant Indian commentaries on the text and highly useful, you can read the verses in about an hour. (You may not understand them at first).

>>17428979
Cool, thanks fren.

>>17428958
>Doesn't your father have a father?
Yes, my father had his own father and so on going back over the existence of the human species
>Or did you give birth to him like you are giving birth to God in asserting that there is a first cause?
I'm not giving birth to God, I'm just pointing out the timeless truth that the contingent things cannot by nature give rise to themselves, and that alternative explanations like pratityasamutpada are refuted by their own contradictions, which have been discussed already. Thus, only an eternally existing uncaused Being or God is a reasonable explanation for why the universe exists.

>>17429024
>reasonable explanation
I will concede only this, that you are using pre-Kantian appeals the power of reason to establish your indo-thomist proof of God

>>17429043
As far as I'm concerned, Kant failed to unwrap the problem presented for his skepticism about the limits of reason by the cosmological arguments that he fails to refute or otherwise explain as wrong. Feser and others have written about this. In the threads on Christian theology it comes up fairly often that Kant's arguments do not really refute what Aquinas et al meant in their cosmological arguments.

>>17426830
>The Buddha: "Young man, do you wish to hear me expound the doctrine of awakening to you?"
>(You): "But Buddha, you make unverifiable claims in your doctrine, how am I supposed to take it seriously?"
>The Buddha: "You can trust in me as your teacher, if you will."
>(You): "I don't think that's wise, though - as I said, you make unverifiable claims."
>The Buddha: "Well then, that's fine - I am not forcing you to accept the doctrine. Goodbye, have a nice life!"
>(You): "B-but Buddha! Unverifiable claims! A-are you btfo yet?"

>>17429072
Sure why not. As Schoppie noted, the theologians were so embarassed by Kant's assault on the cosmological proof that they had to get it new fancy outfits and hope no one recognized it.

>>17429078
/Thread

>>17429078
Embarrassing

>>17429078
Now do this but with daochads.

>>17429203
I am sorry to disappoint you anon, but I don't know enough about the Dao. I've only read that one essay Evola wrote on Dao, but it wasn't enough for me to get real grounding in it. All I know is that they are good at trolling, like Zen Buddhists - I know this from experience. Any recommendations on where to start? Tao te Ching, right?

>>17429230
Yep, and that's basically all you need, but I doubt you'd get it without knowing Chinese culture. You could split the Dao texts into the philosophy parts and the mystical rituals/medicine/divinations parts with most texts falling on the latter.

>>17429246
>You could split the Dao texts into the philosophy parts and the mystical rituals/medicine/divinations parts with most texts falling on the latter.
Are you still referring to Tao te Ching or are you talking about the general body of texts? I have some background with the Traditionalists so I think I'd be able to extract the meaning from the doctrinal part of it. Not sure about rituals. Most ritualism is defective anyway and moreover most are also very inaccessible to me as a poorfag.

>>17429230
I would suspect some of Zen's just-observe attitude is a consequence of coming out of Chinese Chan and Huayen Buddhism, which were in dialogue with Taoism as native Chinese interpretations of Indo-Gandhari Mahayana Buddhism.

>>17429273
The general body. The Tao te Ching is basically a collection of texts and sayings that can be interpreted in 20 different ways because Classical Chinese is based like that and Laozi was even more based.

>>17427111
The whole point of Buddhism is that these truths reveal themselves the deeper into your practice you go. If you haven't realised the truth of pratityasamutpada, rebirth, etc. then it means you still have to practice more

>>17427227
damn nigga read nagarjuna and see the dharma

if a statement were true, then that statement would be independent of context and would remain true in all situations. so if I say OP is gay whenever I say it I win the argument. no one can defeat that supreme truth.

truths are reliant on context. so nothing can ever be true in all cases. there is no such thing as truth. so stop relying on the idea of permanence. truth is dependent on infinite number of causes and conditions. so anything can be true and anything can be false.

>>17429278
That's certainly possible.
>>17429280
Anon you just scared me off from reading Tao te Ching. Are there any other texts associate with the Taoist tradition? Anything that outlines the principles of Taoism, perhaps?

>>17429354
The Tao of Pooh. It's the kid friendly reddit version. You should really read through the TTC at least once though, it's very interesting and every translation is quite different.

>>17426830
>they make unverifiable truth claims
Such as?

>>17429312
This. Btfo TA circlejerk Christians

>>17429312
>so nothing can ever be true in all cases
Is this true in all cases?

>>17429365
>The Tao of Pooh. It's the kid friendly reddit version.
I meant canonical ones.
>You should really read through the TTC at least once though, it's very interesting and every translation is quite different.
This only makes me more concerned. If I could read it in its original meaning, it'd be fine to get confused while interpreting. The idea of just reading a bad translation is scary, though.

>>17429424
There are zero cases where everything is true

>>17429493
>There are zero cases where everything is true
Is this true in all cases?

Reminder that
>Every major Hindu sect that writes a bhasya on the Brahma Sutras has a section inside their bhasya where they attempt to refute Buddhism.
Buddhists have been living rent free in Hindu's minds for over TWO MILLENNIA.

>>17429520
There are no cases.

>>17429551
Is that really the case?

>>17427111
>except for the doctrine of no-self (if it was, who would verify it?)
No-self is already verified. We could not find a self within the brain or anywhere else in our psyche. There's no mini alien observing sense data.

But yes everything else, much like Advaitan belief, is unverifiable.

>>17427582
>Brahman happens for no reason without itself being sustained, set in motion or allowed to take place by any non-contingent thing, what no you can't point out why that's inherently illogical, t-that's concern trolling!!

>>17429564
No, because there are no such cases

>>17429593
Many such cases!

>>17429545
Pictured: What Vedantins hate but can't stop thinking about

>>17426830
>Are there any buddhist books that engage with the fact that they make unverifiable truth claims?
too bad all the claims are verifiable, i guess you are filtered

>>17427111
>>except for pratityasamutpada
>>except for rebirth
>>except the paths of stream-entrant and so forth
>>except for the doctrine of no-self (if it was, who would verify it?)
>>except for the part about Buddha being omniscient and remembering past lives and having superpowers
>>except for the elaborate cosmology described by Buddha involving various hells and heaven realms, hungry ghosts etc
all verifiable, stay an couch potato atheist

>>17427690
>To admit that the the twelve separate links in Pratityasamutpada existing as they did in the ordered manner is already to presuppose something which has to be caused by something other than pratityasamutpada
you dont understand the goal of buddhism, stick to your voodo guru

>>17428260
you dont understand what being conditioned means and again you dont understand the goal of buddhism, so again stick to your mental masturbation, it's your current peak.

>>17429455
Zhuang Zhi

>>17429230
>>17429246
It's not all you need. Start with Zhuang Zhi. Then Lie Tsi And then DDJ.
Awakening to the Tao by Liu I Ming translated by Thomas Cleary is my favourite.

>>17428425
t. coping beyond belief

still haven't figured out how to make a prime mover not a logical impossibility huh?

>>17428657
>"no-self".
Which has nothing to do with buddhism. You may be thinking of "not self".

first cause is a contradiction in adjecto.
Tracing causality to your idea of a god and then stopping there is just pure dishonesty and if you use this sophistic trick about calling the first cause god (whih is ultra gay) you can not make any assessments of the cause's properties.

Has anyone here ever experienced a jhana?
Monks say that you'll lose interest in sensual pleasure once you get to the jhanas since they're more pleasurable than worldly things, I'd like to know if that's true. I don't see myself getting more pleasure from meditation than from music or being in nature.

>>17431483
No but I once had a really intense experience after meditation where I felt completely removed from the world. Things like food, social validation etc. all seemed so laughable to me and I felt absolute clarity. Sadly the state didn't last and I slacked off but I have no doubt that you can reach such states.

>>17431551
What meditation technique did you use?

>>17431552
it's a daoist technique where you let your energy go to your head and then try to open your forehead. i also read the lankavatara sutra at the time which probably contributed.

>>17431568
Thanks

>>17427111
Uhh how is rebirth not verifiable I've literally lived it.
You some kinda sense doubter?

>>17431808
You should look up the word verifiable.

>>17431483
>since they're more pleasurable than worldly things,
how this is not just spititual hedonism?. this is like druggies talking about how their drug feel like heaven.

>>17431863
Because jhanas are explicitly considered to be crutches for the abandonment of worldly pleasures, but should also be abandoned once a higher level of realization is reached
It has absolutely nothing to do with hedonism

>>17431863
there is absolutely nothing wrong with being a hedonist. everyone is hedonistic.

>>17427111
literally all of that true

>>17431872
>but should also be abandoned once a higher level of realization is reached
ok, goes like this
first earth pleasure is not enough.
then spiritual pleasure is not enough.
then you are one with the universe or whatever nonsense and you are finallly happy.
its a strange hedonism, but to me, is just that.
obviously if you believe in all this religious notions and you really believe that you are enlightening yourself or shit like that, then, you think you are doing it because is the Truth. but in the end is just the search for the gold.
you dont know more than when you wake up from a confusing and strange dream.

>>17431938
>then you are one with the universe or whatever nonsense and you are finallly happy.
This has nothing to do with nirvana or buddhism. I suggest you read what buddhism is about first, because your post is based on wrong assumptions.

>>17429566
Imagine getting filtered by basic private observation

>>17427111
>>17429566
There is no such thing as "no self" in buddhist doctrine

>>17431944
Imagine all the people..

>>17431941
i know you probably would say something like this. is the weak part of my post. try to understand my point. i say "whatever nonsense" because is literally non verbally nameable. whatever i say you can say is not what i say and the boring you dont know enough blabalba.
also, like i say, its nonsense to me, but to you is the Truth. my point is that you search for this because a vulgar reason and you dont really get out of nothing. i mean, this life is strange in itself, you dream every night. every human feel this strangeness only you and buddhist and religion fanatics in general are so deep in it that you start to believe you really know what is all about.

>>17431964
>is literally non verbally nameable
Yes, it has to be experienced. It can't be experienced while you're still attached to worldly concerns, so they need to be discarded, first through the experience of more skillful and refined pleasures, which are also abandoned after a certain point.
>its nonsense to me, but to you is the Truth
Given you haven't experienced it, you have no ground to make any claims about it. Only someone who has experienced the unconditioned can say anything about the unconditioned.

>>17431483
>Monks say that you'll lose interest in sensual pleasure once you get to the jhanas since they're more pleasurable than worldly things,
"Even though a disciple of the noble ones has clearly seen as it actually is with right discernment that sensuality is of much stress, much despair, & greater drawbacks, still — if he has not attained a rapture & pleasure apart from sensuality, apart from unskillful mental qualities, or something more peaceful than that[4] — he can be tempted by sensuality. But when he has clearly seen as it actually is with right discernment that sensuality is of much stress, much despair, & greater drawbacks, and he has attained a rapture & pleasure apart from sensuality, apart from unskillful mental qualities, or something more peaceful than that, he cannot be tempted by sensuality.”—MN 14

>>17431964
>i mean, this life is strange in itself, you dream every night. every human feel this strangeness only you and buddhist and religion fanatics in general are so deep in it that you start to believe you really know what is all about.
faith is needed until stream entry, people are not born enlightened and know nothing about enlightenment, unless you are a hindu or mahyana retard

>>17431987
What I said wasn't entirely accurate, you don't lose interest in sensuality upon attaining the jhanas, but being able to attain them gives you another, more skillful source of pleasure than sensual ones. The jhanas alone do not lead to nirvana, but they help.

>>17431990
How difficult is it to reach stream-entry? Are there any definite sources about this?
Some people say you can become a sotapanna on a few weeks' retreat, others say even senior monks are not always stream-enterers. Which is it?

>>17431980
>Only someone who has experienced the unconditioned can say anything about the unconditioned.
well, really nobody can say nothing about the unconditioned or he is conditionating the unconditioned, that is my point, you gonna neutralize every critic with this. basically you are gonna listen only what you want to listen.
look at you, you are denying every observation about an experience. this is so stupid, look, think, why you need to say "you have to feel it or dont talk about it". "nobody can talk about this".
anyway, my point remains, you are looking for this because you are a person and you think, someday, you will know what is really all about. all is ambition and pleasure in the end. then you start believing in your own inner world as a path to a universal truth, like millions of people do before yourself. the mistery live, you dont need to go for it. but its ok. religion probably will always exist because people need some security.

>>17432002
You're not gonna find shit if you don't look for it. You fail to see that your condescension towards religion does not put you above anything but just makes you stagnate.

>>17428973
The Way of Zen by Alan Watts is a great introduction to Zen imo also Dogen`s Manuals of Zen Meditation

>>17431872
>>17431483
Do you mean jnana?

>>17432132
No, I mean jhana/dhyana. Jñana means knowledge

>>17432049
you look for spiritualism as a career.

>>17432140
You're not making any sense.

>>17432140
you justify your laziness with naive skepticism

>>17432146
>You're not gonna find shit if you don't look for it.
you are talking about the unconditioned, which is a pretty simple concept. and you still think you need some guiding steps to get.
>just makes you stagnate.
this is the same. you think this is some kind of career that you need go higher and higher. its stupid and histeric but is like it is. you talk about enlighntment like a phony entrepeneur talk about business and get rich in two months.

>>17432136
Jhana is just meditation according to wiki while jnana is the experience you describe

>>17432167
>which is a pretty simple concept. and you still think you need some guiding steps to get.
You don't seem to understand what is meant by the unconditioned.
>you need go higher and higher
Yes. Your failure to admit this stems from a lack of will. You relating such efforts to grasp the deathless to base material ambitions say more about you than it does about me.
This is getting boring and you obviously don't understand/don't want to understand, let's stop here.

>>17432170
I'm talking about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhy%C4%81na_in_Buddhism#The_r%C5%ABpa_jh%C4%81nas

Buddhism is for hipster faggots, as any other mainstream bullshit. Castaneda is the only way.

>>17428938
so many words, so much delirium. religions make you stupid boring faggot.

>>17432182
>You don't seem to understand what is meant by the unconditioned.
and here we go again. the unconditioned is unspeakable. its stupid you think you know what i say when i say unconditioned. you think you can express better the unconditioned?. i have to explain it with buddhist words?.

>Your failure to admit this stems from a lack of will.
this is my point from the beginning. you are guided by your ambition, and whatever you find is only inside your ambition, which is a pretty wordly and mundane thing, even if you delude yourself in whatever you find. really, you are too deep in it, its like when someone is too deepp in cars racing and he dont even concive that is just one thing in the world. your totally enlighned "experiences" are just an experience. we make the hierarchies. dont forget that.
to me is not boring, but is ok..
your point is that i dont have enough "will" to understand. aka you are not saying what you have to say. its really sad in the end.

>>17432201
>literally a fiction writer who wrote while high
You might as well be recommending stephen king lmao

>>17432236
>it's just an experience bro, it's all subjective and relative, who knows maaan
Typical

>>17432250
its the main point of buddhism, only that when this clash with their stupid hierarchies they start to shrink.
anyway, you can believe whatever you want to believe. meditate til your head explode.

>>17432257
>its the main point of buddhism
Pop buddhism for american housewives, maybe. Read a book

>>17432236
you are too deep in your prejudices and clichés, sucks to be you

>>17432271
>not subscribing to braindead sophomoric skepticism means you're too biased
Maybe someday you'll realize your fear of engaging with anything is holding you back

>>17432271
you have your prejudice that you are enlightned if you meditate. its the same in the end. anyway explain to me why this experiences are more than experiences.

>>17432285
It's not the same because you refuse to engage with anything that lies outside of your skeptic comfort zone in fear that you'll be just like the other people who are "too deep into it".
Experiences are not more than experiences. But direct experience is the only means by which higher meaning can be understood. Not words or debate, and definitely not the kind of spiritual laziness you're guilty of

>>17431997
>Are there any definite sources about this?
Theravada barely talks about it. In Suttas you'll find something like "7 days or 7 months or 7 years of practice". I remember nothing else about it that doesn't come from so-called pragmatic dhamma community.
>Some people say you can become a sotapanna on a few weeks' retreat, others say even senior monks are not always stream-enterers. Which is it?
Probably both are true. Apparently it's easy to spend decades meditating with dullness or in some other pitfall due to the lack of proper instructions. On the other hand I heard about some western students of Dipa Ma that meditated for few weeks or months and gained Sotapanna.
From what I gathered it's relatively easy to gain Sotapanna if you dedicate yourself to Dhamma (meditating an hour a day or more, observing yourself outside meditation, thinking about Dhamma and trying to see everything through the lens of Three Characteristics) even outside of monastic setting. Higher fruits are harder outside of it because they require abandoning of external pleasures and morality perfected on a much higher level.
I didn't reach Sotapanna.
>>17431483
I had one jhanic experience with almost unbearable constant bliss filling my whole body and every potential distraction not being able to move my mind out of this state. I was able to replicate it a few times in a weaker form.
Even though pleasure from Jhanas is incomparable, you can still enjoy worldly pleasures, so they pose danger to practice, especially in lay setting when you're baited by them constantly.

>>17432330
Have you gone on retreats? What's personally preventing you from reaching sotapanna?
>observing yourself outside meditation
You mean constant mindfulness of one's own actions? This seems particularly hard as it precludes daydreaming or basically doing anything else than living in the moment.
>I had one jhanic experience
By which means did you reach it?
>you can still enjoy worldly pleasures, so they pose danger to practice
Of course, but I would assume that someone who is proficient enough to rest in the jhanas relatively easily would have an easier time dealing with sensual temptations since he'd have that "refuge" of higher bliss.

>>17432314
this is stupid. i am in the skeptic comfort zone, and you are in the spiritual comfort zone. it makes no sense criticize that. i am not afraid to be "too deep into it". if i really believe in it i dont care at all. i look at things and i interpret it. yes, i interpret too your histerical and common "you have to feel it ". i just think people misguide and are too deep into it because wordly ambition, that wordly ambition is in the heart of it. their lives. that is my point. you are the one who make the experience valuable. you cant conceive that someone experience the unconditioned and dont give a shit. you think that is impossible or ignorance. and i dont.

>>17432351
>you are in the spiritual comfort zone.
Since I'm making an effort to see what lies beyond my perception, I wouldn't call it a comfort zone, but whatever helps you rationalize things
>you think that is impossible or ignorance
Yes, unless you redefine words to point to other concepts.

Why is this board so Mahayana phobic?

>>17432364
It's not, there are a bunch of mahayanists here

>>17432364
its just one schizo trying to divide and rule, Buddhists mostly agree with each other on the main points.

>>17429291
Thats literally all religions though.
Don't believe our doctrines yet? Just do our exercises even harder.

>>17432360
>Since I'm making an effort to see what lies beyond my perception,
this is funny.
well, i think we reach to our separation. i dont believe what you believe. and we cant say much more, i think.
to me the unconditioned is just that. something you cant use, even for your spiritual path. its more deep than that, and the words are not enough, but i see in you and in all spiritual people dirty machinations and desperation after something that is inside themselves from the beginning. i know this sounds naive but is like i see it. i really think this hierarchy and meditation and various steps of enlighntement and all that add mistery and give body to the knowledge and to your well being, but i really think there is nothing in it. you are just feeling your own desire.

>>17432393
>Buddhists mostly agree with each other on the main points.
That's not really true. Also you're wrong, I don't like mahayana but I'm not the only one.

>>17432400
You don't understand anything about what you're criticizing and don't want to learn or understand. Stay ignorant.

>>17432395
>Thats literally all religions though.
False. Abrahamists don't care if you don't "experience" their truths, you just need to have faith.

>>17432403
>That's not really true
It actually is, get over it.

>>17432413
Why do you get so defensive every time someone expresses distaste towards either mahayana or the idea that all Buddhists subscribe to some kind of syncretism, which is obviously not true?

>>17432420
I don't, I'm just stating facts. All Buddhist agree on the core ideas. Simple as.

>>17432409
maybe youre right. maybe someday i understand. maybe someday you join the skeptic army. who cares?. im trying to say something different than what you think. but ... its not important in the end

>>17432427
Dude just stop and look at yourself for a moment. Reread your posts. Are you sure you're not being needlessly defensive?
>get over it
>Simple as
>just stating facts
It seems to me that this is making you upset and you always refuse to discuss it no matter what. Why?

>core ideas
Bodhisattva vow vs. ideal of arahantship
Clear distinction between Nibbana and samsara vs. underlying emptiness of both

>>17432167
Based niggaposter.
Spiritual ambition is cancer.

>>17432411
No religion cares if you experience shit they just want you to tow the line.
Also faith is an experience for abrahamists and it also plays a vital role in their epistemology.

>>17432443
>Dude just stop and look at yourself for a moment. Reread your posts. Are you sure you're not being needlessly defensive?
I can assure you I'm not being needlessly defensive despite your denial.

>It seems to me that this is making you upset and you always refuse to discuss it no matter what. Why?
It doesn't really, you are just taking offense where there isn't. Lighten up.

>Bodhisattva vow vs. ideal of arahantship Clear distinction between Nibbana and samsara vs. underlying emptiness of both
Yes they disagree on some things but like I said they agree on the core ideas (4 noble truths, 8 fold path, 3 marks, 5 precepts, 12 chains of causation, etc.). There is no ill will between Buddhist branches, in fact you'll get more disagreements within branches than between.

>>17432444
>Spiritual ambition is cancer.
Why?

>>17432466
It makes peoeple think they are higher and better because they are more ahead on the path or whatever, which is the first sign of actually being on the wrong path.
People who go gungho on religion usually end up like this.
You surely know the christian who thinks she is better then you because she belongs to X denom and does Y thing.

>>17432466
Because the church fathers said so.

>>17432463
My bad then, I guess you come off as stuck-up.
>they agree on the core ideas (4 noble truths, 8 fold path, 3 marks, 5 precepts, 12 chains of causation
Yes, but the point is that the way these ideas are interpreted is different and culminate in the two main divergences I stated above, which are not minor since they imply different worldviews entirely.

>>17432342
I haven't gone to any retreat. Morality and unhappy life in general is probably the biggest cause preventing me from reaching Sotapanna. People who reported reaching jhanas and Sotapanna quickly were generally happy people, content with their jobs, regularly hitting gym et. and I have/do nothing of that.
>This seems particularly hard as it precludes daydreaming or basically doing anything else than living in the moment.
You need to build your mental capabilities and learn subtler observation skills during formal meditation. You'll be able to observe and do random stuff at the same time if you train and learn to do it properly.
>>17432342
I was meditating with instructions from The Mind Illuminated for 2 or 3 months for an hour a day, supplemented with walking meditation. It just happened one day after a subtle warning sign.
>Of course, but I would assume that someone who is proficient enough to rest in the jhanas relatively easily would have an easier time dealing with sensual temptations since he'd have that "refuge" of higher bliss.
Daily meditation inherently has its ups and downs. Also quality of your meditation is greatly affected by life turmoil, illness, fatigue. Even Sotapanna (there is such case in the Suttas) can be affected by these and fall temporarily into lower states. In these lower states you can fall easily into old habits.

>>17427714
Fuck off, Hare Krishna fag!

>>17432466
>>Why?
bugmen prefer cooming

>>17432463
>There is no ill will between Buddhist branches, in fact you'll get more disagreements within branches than between.
Phra Prommolee, head of the investigation unit was reported to be planning discussions with Phra Dhammachayo to convince him that the orthodox concept of nibbana was selflessness. The senior monk indicated he wished Wat Phra Dhammakaya to give up its status as a temple and become a centre for meditation. Thailand’s highly regarded scholar monk, Phra Dhammapitaka sought to identify Wat Phra Dhammakaya’s position as heretical by commenting ‘In all Buddhist scriptures, both the Tipitaka and the commentaries, there is no evidence that nibbana is atta. But there is much evidence [that ]nibbana is anatta.... The Buddha taught that nibbana is a state free of defile-ment, and being non-self ’. The scholar-monk took the view that ayatananibbana, the term used by Wat Phra Dhammakaya to describe the location of all enlightened beings, and which may be visited temporarily by those who have the ability to practice Dhammakaya meditation at the highest Wat Phra Dhammakaya level was erroneous. He thought that the term was simply another way of expressing the extinguishing of the fires of greed, hatred and delusion. Indeed, Phra Dhammapitaka comments that there is a lot of speculation about these issues and the important issue is not to define nibbana for others but to look into oneself to see if defilements are decreasing. Phra Dhammapitaka’s book, The Case of Dhammakaya drew fire from the movement it sought to critique. A Wat Phra Dhammakaya member using the pen name Dr Ben Barakul produced a series of books which accused Phra Dhammapitaka of ‘being a communist sympathizer and part of a Christian conspiracy to destroy Buddhism in Thailand’. These books had strong financial backing and were distributed to temples nationwide. Police confiscated these books from stores and ‘issued an arrest warrant for the author, Ben Barakul, on a charge of defamation. However, as it is a pseudonym, police have been unable to locate him’ (Bangkok Post, 2000)

>>17428415
Read the references in "What The Buddha Taught" and "In The Buddha's Words" for terms and expressions you do not understand. The alleged chart may be helpful.
That's unless you lack basic education in philosophy, for which I guess you need to get a textbook like Durant's to orient yourself.

>>17432589
This chart should really be updated.
>>17428415
Just look up what you don't understand, or ask here.

>>17432496
Do you plan to? It seems really difficult to me to follow the path without some kind of external support, especially regarding morality.
>learn subtler observation skills during formal meditation.
Which do you think is more important between samatha and vipassana? It seems people usually recommend to start with samatha then move on to vipassana once a high enough level has been reached.
I'm kind of skeptical of physicalist approaches to meditation which is why I haven't read The Mind Illuminated.
>fall temporarily into lower states. In these lower states you can fall easily into old habits
Sotapanna is described as finally seeing the goal (nibbana) instead of just having blind faith in it, and which makes it impossible to stray from the path (hence the seven remaining births), do the suttas contradict themselves?

So is nirvana like the platonic world soul?

>>17432690
No.

>>17432695
What's the difference?

>>17432710
The Hindu concept of paramatman would be more similar to the world soul. Nibbana is usually described as the complete cessation of suffering, ultimate and absolute freedom, bliss, a "state" beyond existence and nonexistence.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/nibbana.html

>>17432734
>paramatman would be more similar to the world soul.
No, in the neo-Platonic scheme it corresponds to the One, the word soul is an intermediate stage between the world of matter and the one but there is nothing higher than the Atman. The World soul in Vedanta would be Ishvara/Hiranyagarbha.

>>17432634
What would you change about the chart?

I've read a fair bit of In the Buddha's words and I honestly thought it was excellent, and I've heard excellent reception concerning "The Mind Illuminated".

I haven't progressed far in the chart obviously but I think one change I would make is adding "What the Buddha Taught" by walpola rahula and putting it before "In the Buddha's Words" as an introductory text.

>>17433317
>adding "What the Buddha Taught" by walpola rahula and putting it before "In the Buddha's Words" as an introductory text.
There's really no point, you don't need two introductory books. WTBT is much more succinct, ITBW is more exhaustive and focuses on actual suttas, it's a matter of preference.

>>17433317
>The Mind Illuminated
eh, it's too focused on secular, materialistic approaches

>>17432589
>>17432634
>>17433317
New chart that addresses none of your concerns but answers them

>>17434010
>only two books from the pali canon
anyway, assuming the books are in order, swap the MN and the DN, and replace the buddhist lit. of ancient gandhara by the sutta nipata

>>17434045
You do know those two are like bricks right? You could spend half a year reading them.

>>17434010
>>17434045
galaxy brain buddhism should just be pic related by the way

>>17434060
they're not particularly hard to understand
looking closer at the list, I don't really get the logic, why did you include stuff like the avatamsaka sutra but not the diamond or lotus sutras?

>>17434096
Like any good list it's just "things I've read." If there was a focus I would say it's a basic foundation in the canon and then the Mahayana schools Madhyamaka, Yogacara, and Huayen.

>>17434010
The other one's better, this one would work as a stand-alone chart on Mahayana though, if you removed the Dhammapada and Nikayas and added a couple other sutras (there's nothing for Pure Land and Nichiren).

Now that I think about it there should be one chart for each of the three vehicles.

>>17434010
>all this mahayana

kek, just give him the vedas and the upanishads at this point.

>>17434158
seethe cope and dilate

deaf faggots argue about music, again

>>17434301
Didn't you vow to liberate me from suffering? Not doing a very good job so far

Is the impermanence of beauty truly a good enough reason to relinquish it? Daoists don't seem to mind.

>>17434814
It's not that you relinquish it. Rather you don't cling to it as a source of lasting happiness. You can still appreciate the beauty of a flower, but you have to also understand that it won't last. Nothing does.

>>17435032
Aren't you supposed to avoid as many sensual pleasures as possible? Which includes basically anything pleasant experienced through the six senses?

Namo Bhaishajyaguru.
Namo Amituofo.

>>17435039
Not necessarily avoid, although that can be a skillful means of maintaining a clear mind when you are easily enraptured by them. The main thing is to not be attached to anything.

>>17435062
>Not necessarily avoid
The precepts mention refraining from things such as sex or music. I know you're not supposed to go cold turkey from the start, but it gives the impression that the end goal is indeed the rejection of everything sense-based.
>to not be attached
How do you do that?

>>17435073
The precepts are a set of skillful means that enable one to achieve liberation in an easier manner, they are the finger pointing at the moon.
One maintains a detached mind by being constantly in remembrance of the Three Marks of Existence.

>>17435096
Does that mean monks can violate the precepts if they're sufficiently advanced on the path?
I understand the three marks intellectually but how are you supposed to constantly apply them to everything? Also, I get how everything is anicca and anatta but not all things are dukkha, from my perspective. When I look at a sunrise, there's no dukkha there.

>>17435112
Speaking of the sun, if you like to analyze things a bit, what does all that sunlight set in motion every day?

>>17435131
>what does all that sunlight set in motion every day?
Well, many things, it contributes to life in the broad sense. Are you trying to sugges that the sun indirectly causes suffering by giving rise to events which themselves may be painful?
This is true, but is it not possible to take a sunrise, or a cloud passing in the sky, or a nice smell or whatever as its own standalone thing, even if it's impermanent and not self?

>>17435112
Monks can violate precepts, but they are supposed to uphold them, as well as laymen. Laymen are bound to uphold five to eight to even sixteen or eighteen depending upon the lineage. Yes, it's better not to listen to music and go to the disco, but if you do, try to maintain a concentrated mind that maintains observation of your vows and practice. You'll be fine then.
Everything is also dukkha, which is better translated as unsatisfactory rather than suffering. The sunset you see may be beautiful, but it does not last, and unless you have an enlightened mind, you will probably long for more such sunsets. This is unsatisfactory. Anyway, I must go. I have things to do today.

>>17435159
I suppose you could freeze an exact instant and imagine it to be standalone without antecedent or consequence but for what purpose?

>>17435185
I thought monks were excommunicated (or whatever the Buddhist term is) if they committed a grave offense.
And thanks, I understand dukkha better now.
>>17435186
I would argue that taking the consequences of something like a pleasant breeze into account requires more effort than simply experiencing it while paying no mind to the other phenomena it causes.

>>17435201
>more effort than simply experiencing it while paying no mind to the other phenomena
That's true but even without the analysis of a sunrise's relations to other phenomena, the experience is not really singular or standalone. Experience is more of a stream than distinct wholes. Within the perception of sunrise you have sight, feeling, thought, potentially sounds or smells etc.

>>17435252
Yes, you're right.
My misunderstandings are mostly cleared up, I think I was wrongly assuming that non-attachment and rejection were the same thing. Though monks still seem to verge on the latter.

>>17435271
Another way to think of it is equipose. The sunset is aesthetically beautiful but also means more fuel for the various lives on earth devouring each other for nourishment. So it is not to be desired but also not despaired of, since both views attach to "the sun".

>>17435356
Isn't that similar to daoism?

>>17435045
holy based

>>17435096
>>17435185
Don't listen to this guy breaking your vows is among the worst things a buddhist can do.

>>17435435
>among the worst things a buddhist can do.
Is there a reason for this?

>>17435415
I haven't read any Daoist works but of the native Chinese systems Buddhism has more in common with Daoism than Confucianism.

>>17432666
>Do you plan to?
It would be cool. Seeing dhamma directly feels like the most important long term endeavor in my life anyway.
> It seems people usually recommend to start with samatha then move on to vipassana once a high enough level has been reached.
True. Doing vipassana first makes you train samatha in a roundabout way anyway, so why avoid samatha and pleasurable lubrication of jhanas? Practice should be fun. Suttas say a bhikkhu replaces joys of a householder with joys of jhanas, vipassana manuals say joy is a defilement.
>Sotapanna is described as finally seeing the goal (nibbana) instead of just having blind faith in it, and which makes it impossible to stray from the path (hence the seven remaining births), do the suttas contradict themselves?
No. One can temporarily fall to lower state due to circumstances but will bounce back to higher one due to Sotapanna elevating baseline state.
In that one sutta there was a Sotapanna bhikkhu who experienced fear and bewilderment due to a cart passing close to him and this bhikkhu asked Buddha if it's possible for him to fall to naraka due to him being able to experience these states and the Buddha said 'no'.
>I'm kind of skeptical of physicalist approaches to meditation which is why I haven't read The Mind Illuminated.
>>17433932
Important chapters of TMI compile meditation techniques from the Suttas, Theravada Abhidhamma and Vajrayana into a coherent framework full of small and useful tips. You can safely disregard interludes if you want to avoid view parts, although I don't think the book expounds materialist-heavy stuff, but maybe I'm biased.

>>17435112
>>I understand the three marks intellectually but how are you supposed to constantly apply them to everything?
sati and sampajanna, which is an effort, until you get fully enlightened

>>17434814
>Is the impermanence of beauty truly a good enough reason to relinquish it?
yes and you cant fight it, it's mechanical because it's the condition for liebration

>>17432395
So... we're trashing religions for offering first hand verification now? Lmao

>>17435552
>you cant fight it
I meant more in the "accepting ephemerality" sense rather than clinging to something impermanent

>>17434494
this

>>17435615
Put your name back on, schizo

>>17435624
... what?

>>17426830
First of all, you don't even know what Truth actually is.

Second, Enlightenment has many facets and can only be verified by experiencing it.

>>17436019
Why are you so defensive when your answer is no?

>>17436031
Why are you projecting and misinterpreting my post?

What's with all the repetition?

>>17436193
Made them easier to memorize.

>>17429619
SAD!

>>17436193
>not memorizing all the sutras
ngmi

>>17434494
This