/lit/ - Literature

Plato's Phaedrus, Republic, Symposium.
You might be surprised however.

>>17505219
Shankara’s commentaries on the Upanishads and Bhagavad-Gita
Ashtavakra Gita
Ribhu Gita
Yoga Vasistha
Bhavartha Deepika

Samsara is not real you're just a faggot

>>17505302
I would be careful about cryptobuddhists etc

>>17505325
What's real then?

>>17505329
these nuts

>>17505339
They're a part of samsara

>>17505219
only the pali canon

>>17505341
>muh king james tripitaka

>>17505219
Alien Interview, by Lawrence Spencer.

>>17505219
The Dark Tower series.

>>17505252
The Timaeus

>>17505219
of the two hell's which one is supposed to be pretaloka and which one is supposed to be nerakaloka? the bottom pic with the pepes torturing the wojacks could be either

>>17506185
This is actually a good suggestion even though most of the books were shit. What are some similar sagas? I've been looking for something like TDT for a long time
>>17506236
The bottom one is the narakas I think

>>17506196
So what happens when you've finally finished all of these, unironically

>>17505219
>reading books
you will forever be in samsara doing that

>>17506291
Fourteen by Kazou Umezu.

>>17506335
Anything that isn't a manga?

>>17506305
People keep asking for a Vajrayana chart that's what

>>17506413
Did you actually read all these texts?
Were they helpful on any level other than expanding your base of knowledge? Please be honest.

>>17506305
>So what happens when you've finally finished all of these, unironically
You dissolve into NuOblivion, relativist nihilism, non-essentialist disassociative disorder, macbook extinction, silicon valley castration mindfullness eradication zen suicide reification of lobotomy, soγnihilation

>>17506431
Are you a christian

>>17506438
No, I’m not a formal member of anything, I like studying mysticism and religious philosophy but I think Buddhism is generally pretty gay

>>17506621
You should probably look into it more in depth since the nihilism meme really doesn't stand up to an actual reading of the scriptures.

>>17506422
They are a helpful foundation for all Buddhist philosophy as there is little else you will read that does not go back to, reference, or otherwise incorporate a. the nikayas b. madhyamaka c. yogacara-vijñanavada. I recommend studying multiple philosophies and religions because if you merely focus on one it will all seem very novel and insightful and you won't be able to tell if it is true or if you just haven't heard otherwise. That said I do have a preference for Buddhist views and find them more agreeable to me than other systems.

>>17506431
I was in a new age/indo-kitsch shop once and they had an entire wall of Buddhist books. Upon further inspection I noticed 90% of it was smoothbrained secondary pop-lit, and not actual texts produced by Buddhists. So reading actual Buddhist texts will not turn you into a namaste suburban HR mom.

>>17506649
>I recommend studying multiple philosophies and religions
Honestly there's no religious philosophy worth reading about other than Buddhism, Hinduism and Neoplatonism.

>>17506685
There's a few more

>>17506693
Such as?

>>17506628
>You should probably look into it more in depth
I have
>since the nihilism meme really doesn't stand up to an actual reading of the scriptures.
I disagree, I think unless you take an unconventional interpretation not taught by most Buddhist schools or unless you go with a Buddhism thats just Shaivism or Taoism in disguise it results in nihilism

>One can see here, perhaps, the cause of the Abhidharma (and the Yogacara) objection to Madhyamaka philosophy. Also, the notion of conceptual construction would appear to entail - not only something foundational on the basis of which constructed entities can be constructed, but also - someone or something foundational who or what is doing the constructing. If it is contended that all entities are conceptually constructed, this would seem to necessitate an answer to the question, conceptually constructed by whom? If it is then said, as a consistent Madhyamika presumably must say, that whoever conceptually constructs is himself conceptually constructed, an infinite regress results.

>I don't think that I can make sense of the idea that even the agent (be it the self, the mind, or the flow of impermanent cittas) which conceptually constructs entities is itself a conceptual construction. The explanation that the agent is itself a conceptual construction begs the question, for such a conceptual construction would itself require an agent to do the constructing. The meaning of 'conceptual construction' presupposes an agent which is a perpetrator of, and is logically prior to, the conceptual construction.

>This in no way contradicts the important psychological spiritual point that, in many respects, one's views about one's self and the world are conceptual constructs (e.g. as a result of upbringing, habit, education, and, arguably, karma). I am simply making the compatible philosophical point that in order to have conceptually constructed views about who one is and how the world is, there must be someone/something itself unconstructed which has the views, or is doing the viewing. The very idea of conceptual construction seems to imply, then, both some material, itself unconstructed, which is the basis of construction, and also some agent who is the constructor of what is constructed. Yet, according to the interpretation which I have presented, in his assertion that all entities are conventions, i.e. prajnaptisat, Nagarjuna precludes the possibility of either of these necessary requirements for conceptual construction~ If, therefore, as Nagarjuna seems to say, the ultimate truth is that all entities are conventional truths in the Abhidharma sense, then it seems to follow that - unwelcome -as the conclusion might be to Nagarjuna himself - in fact nothing whatsoever exists at all. Nagarjuna is, as his opponents contend, a nihilist.

>>17506723
Oh it's just you, never mind

>>17506695
There is a lot of diversity of human thought worth being acquainted with, even if one rejects much of it.

>>17506744
I don't think being a dilettante is better than seriously dedicating yourself to the study of one or two schools of thought.

>>17506723
>The very idea of conceptual construction seems to imply, then, both some material, itself unconstructed, which is the basis of construction, and also some agent who is the constructor of what is constructed.
I'll bite. This is just anthrocentrism masquerading as universalism. Not very enlightened of you to think bigger man made man but there's no biggerer man because brain hurts.

>>17506621
>guenonfag is literally hopping threads with 'buddhism gay' posts after getting BTFO yesterday

>>17506756
These aren't mutually exclusive. I'm sure many of our cyber indologists or neopagans using Platonism for a framework on /lit/ were raised in Christian homes anyway

>>17506770
>bigger man made man but there's no biggerer man because brain hurts.
kek
Also, this interpretation of "madhyamaka is nihilism" just doesn't make much sense. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nagarjuna/

>>17506777
I suppose you can read about other philosophies every once in a while but if you're seriously pursuing a single subject you're probably mostly reading things related to it and not trying to broaden your horizons.
>many of our cyber indologists or neopagans using Platonism for a framework on /lit/ were raised in Christian homes
I don't understand, what's your point?

I sense the presence of an advaitin cockroach in this thread. Show yourself at once.

>>17506790
>what's your point
Be familiar with what you are rejecting. Most westerners are not dharmists or neoplatonists. If you ever plan to engage with other people on these topics instead of just being a cyberpunk anchorite it would be to your benefit.

>>17506807
>I'm sorry I copied your homework senpai

>>17506811
>cyberpunk anchorite
Sounds based.
Why would I engage anyone on this topic outside of /lit/, anyway?
It's good to have a basic level of familiarity with Christianity but I don't see the point in delving into the church fathers if you don't agree with the core tenets in the first place.

>>17506822
Yeah I don't think a deep dive is totally necessary into the stuff but you do have to read something to get those core tenets for refutation in the first place.

>>17506781
madhyamika is considered nihilism by most hindus (and even notable buddhists) for the same reason most hindus consider advaita (mayavada) to be nihilism. They think that unreality of the conventional world means that things don't exist at all (nihilism).

>>17506723
Two contemporary writers on Madhyamaka, Paul Williams and David Burton, argue that stage 4 (the idea of an ultimate level of existence being rejected) constitutes a fatal philosophical mistake the Madhyamaka makes, leading both to nihilism and inconsistency.

>I have argued elsewhere that Madhyamaka should be seen as a stage in abhidharma debate, and from an Abhidharma (Vaibhasika) perspective the Madhyamika claim that all things are niḥsvabhava equates with claiming that all things are conceptual constructs (prajnaptisat). It seems to me this would not have been seen as sensible at all by the great majority of other Buddhist scholars, not to mention of other traditions, since it is a straight forward contradiction to claim that all things without exception are constructs. There has to be something which is not a construct in order for things to be constructed out of it/them. Otherwise we in fact have no constructs at all, this would have to be an ontological nihilism. This is precisely the accusation widely levelled at Madhyamaka in India.

David Burton makes essentially the same point:
>One can see here why opponents of Madhyamaka - as represented even in Madhyamaka texts - accused the Madhyamikas of nihilism. They perhaps have a point after all. For an entirely fabricated world - with no basis at all which is real, i.e. anything more than a conceptual construction - would seem to be hardly distinguishable from a non-existent world. Conceptually constructed things, it can be contended, need an unconstructed basis out of which they are constructed. Arguably, also, conceptual construction requires an agent of the construction - someone or something which is doing the constructing - which is not him/itself a conceptual construction. Perhaps, then Madhyamikas have gone too far in asserting the merely fabricated nature of all things. The Madhyamaka philosophy, it can be claimed, is not the Middle Way after all. It has fallen into the extreme of nihilism.”

1/2

>>17507213
>>17506723
Williams and Burton raise the worry that once a theory introduces the notion of some entities being existentially dependent on others it will then also have to postulate some non-dependent entities to ground the other ones to avoid being contradictory. If there is no ultimate ground for dependent entities to stand on they will all fall down, and in the end we will be left with nothing at all, and will end up with ontological nihilism—which is exactly the point Asan ̇ga makes in the Bodhisattvabhumi. And since at least the appearance of some things existing exists, this nihilistic conclusion is contradictory.

Fortunately this worry is easily resolved. If we consider the structure of dependence relations, we can distinguish three possible scenarios. Either the dependence relations are grounded in independent entities, the dependence relations go on forever, or they close back on themselves in a circle. If, as Williams and Burton correctly state, the Madhyamika will want to reject the scenario that conventional things exist, we are still left with scenarios two and three. Both are demonstrably consistent, so we need not worry that there is any contradiction hidden in them on the theoretical level. Contemporary interpreters of Madhyamaka have usually opted for the dependence-circle as the preferred way of spelling out the structure of the theory of emptiness. Joseph Walser remarks that

>Rupa and so forth are designated on the basis of karya/karaṇa. But because these two are designated based on each other, like two sheaves of reeds leaning one against the other (to use a metaphor commonly associated with dependent origination) there is no regress. This is not a temporal relationship of causal dependency but an atemporal relationship of conditional necessity. No further element is necessary.

The important point to take into account is that dependency-structures do not have to be hierarchical, with independent substances at the bottom and various levels of constructed entities at the top. They can form networks where following the chain of dependence relations we may finally end up at the very place we started. We can therefore put the Williams/Burton argument to one side. It does not show that the Madhyamaka rejection of a well-founded dependence relation is contradictory, nor does it demonstrate that the denial of the existence of a foundation entails that nothing exists whatsoever.

2/2

>>17507217
>The important point to take into account is that dependency-structures do not have to be hierarchical, with independent substances at the bottom and various levels of constructed entities at the top. They can form networks where following the chain of dependence relations we may finally end up at the very place we started
That's similar to the Huayen reading, ie. the jeweled net metaphor wherein each reflects all of the others

>>17506807
>*blocks your path*
>*teleports behind you*
>*refutes Nagarjuna and exposes him to be nothing more than a pathetic sophist*
>*sheathes katana*

>>17507411
tl;dr, cope harder cryptobuddhist

>>17507411
>*draws katana out again*
>*retroactively teleports both behind and in front of you*
>*calls you a crypto-buddhist all directions*
>*sheathes katana*

>>17507411
>nothing personnel, pracchanabauddha

>>17507329
>each reflects all of the others
What does this mean? Is it to be understood literally where there are infinite universes that all depend on each other?

>>17507504
The jewels, being clear, reflect the images of one another. It is a metapor describing how emptiness makes phenomenal existence possible and non-dual.

>>17507555
Isn't this already said in the heart sutra?

>>17507561
The Heart Sutra and the Hua-Yen school are both sourcing the prajñaparamita literature which is essential to Mahayana Buddhism.

>>17507679
>prajñaparamita literature
You mean what Nagarjuna wrote?

>>17505339
All hail these nuts!

>>17507702
All within a few centuries of each other, not sure of the exact chronology. But in terms of content the sutra and the karikas are prajñaparamita.

>>17507329>>17507504

>That's similar to the Huayen reading, ie. the jeweled net metaphor wherein each reflects all of the others
Indra's net is literally hinduism

>>17506822
>>17506992
Christianity encompasses Buddhism, it is not refutable.

>>17507862
Yeah there are Chinese Buddhists making reference to Indian gods. It's not it's haram.

>>17508240
Thank you for your opinion christer

>>17508448
But it's true

>>17505219
But bro
Samsara = Nirvana
Ain't that awesome chief?

>>17505329
The present.

>>17508635
Yeah but until you realize this you're still stuck in samsara so it's the same shit, bub

>>17506781
>Also, this interpretation of "madhyamaka is nihilism" just doesn't make much sense.
Yes it does, because if the only things that exist are conceptually constructed, and on the absolute level no phenomena exist, and if there is no transcendent Absolute, then that amounts to saying that the only things that have any form of existence are the unreal conceptual constructs, ergo nothing really exists, ergo nihilism

>>17506770
>'ll bite. This is just anthrocentrism masquerading as universalism.
No it’s not, non-sentient things don’t have concepts, conceptualization inevitably presupposes a pre-existing entity to that concept

>>17510279
Ok crypto-buddhist

why is the frog symbolic of "the turbulence of wrath" in the Discourse on the Anthill?

>>17507217
>Both are demonstrably consistent, so we need not worry that there is any contradiction hidden in them on the theoretical level.
That’s actually wrong, because dependent origination is held by Buddhists to be 12 specific links existing in a certain order, this aggregation of the links into that order can either be uncaused in which case sunyata is falsified, or it can be caused or arise from within dependent origination, but dependent origination cannot cause its own aggregation if its not aggregated already, because that results in the same contradiction as saying a daughter gives birth to her own mother, it’s logically impossible. Whoever wrote this evidently never read Shankara and never saw where he BTFO dependent origination.

> but an atemporal relationship of conditional necessity. No further element is necessary.
>The important point to take into account is that dependency-structures do not have to be hierarchical, with independent substances at the bottom and various levels of constructed entities at the top. They can form networks where following the chain of dependence relations we may finally end up at the very place we started
Yes but if you still negate all those things as not really existing as Madhyamka does then you are still left with nothing ultimately existing, that doesn’t fundamentally change anything or absolve Madhyamaka of being nihilism. An Indra’s net of not really existing things with no real existence anywhere still leads to ultimately nothing existing

>>17510455
How could a buddhist (Shankara) "btfo" buddhist doctrine? Makes no sense

>>17510364
https://suttacentral.net/define/uddhum%C4%81yik%C4%81
Apparently the word for frog used in that sutta literally means "One who swells up" which conjures the image of an angry person

>>17510341
t. nihilist

>>17505339
based

>>17510468
>How could a Shankara btfo buddhist doctrine?
With his infallible reasoning that makes sophists and nihilists quake in their boots

>>17510455
>That’s actually wrong
You didn't understand the argument put forth. Burton and William says conceptual constructed are either sustained by something unconstructed or they regress infinity. However there is still the possibility that conceptually constructed entities circle back to each other like a snake consuming its own tail over and over (ouroboros).

>Whoever wrote this evidently never read Shankara and never saw where he BTFO dependent origination.
J. Westerhoff writing in the Indian journal of philosophy (springer) also writes about how Shankara's attempt at refuting Madhyamika:

>Sankara’s criticism of Madhyamaka is brief and somewhat cryptic. In his commentary on Brahmasutra 2.2.31 he rejects the śūnyavāda by pointing out that the worldly convention established by all epistemic instruments cannot be denied while another reality has not been obtained. While the precise import of this statement is not clear what is important is that Sankara characterizes the Madhyamikas as denying conventional reality. As it is clear that they would reject the existence of anything at the level of ultimate reality, adding the rejection of conventional reality just amounts to the rejection of everything altogether. If nothing exists at the level of either conventional or ultimate reality, the resulting position must be a form of nihilism.In his commentary on Bṛhadāraṇyaka Unpaniṣad 4.3.7 Sankara gives a slightly more detailed criticism of the notion of emptiness. He notes that Indeed whether the object, the pot etc. was non-existent or existent, in both cases the real existence of the consciousness of the pot etc is certainly admitted by you. That cannot be denied, for there is no argument supporting such a denial. In this way the emptiness of everything is refuted. San ̇kara points out that even if there is no pot, there is still the representation of the pot in consciousness. Yet if this appearance of a pot in consciousness is taken to be sufficient to refute the “emptiness of everything” this must be understood as a theory that not only says that there are no pots, but also that there are no appearances or representations of pots. Keeping in mind the characterization of Yogacara and Madhyamika by Kumarila we have just seen (Yogacarins deny external objects, Madhyamikas deny both external and internal objects) we can understand Sankara denying the consistency of the latter position. Even though we may reject the existence of external, material objects, the existence of their representation in consciousness is supported by all epistemic instruments and cannot be refuted by any argument.
So yes he clearly has read Shankara

>An Indra’s net of not really existing things with no real existence anywhere still leads to ultimately nothing existing
a conventional Indra's net is valid, again you keep making the mistake that ultimate existence of emptiness = nothing exists at all. Emptiness isn't Nothingness.

Try out some linji and Longchenpa.

http://www.thezensite.com/ZenTeachings/Translations/Teachings_of_Rinzai.pdf

http://promienie.net/images/dharma/books/longchenpa_treasury-of-the-basic-space-of-phenomena.pdf

>>17511878
>poo seething 2500 years after the buddha

>>17510455
>That’s actually wrong, because dependent origination is held by Buddhists to be 12 specific links existing in a certain order, this aggregation of the links into that order can either be uncaused in which case sunyata is falsified, or it can be caused or arise from within dependent origination, but dependent origination cannot cause its own aggregation if its not aggregated already, because that results in the same contradiction as saying a daughter gives birth to her own mother, it’s logically impossible. Whoever wrote this evidently never read Shankara and never saw where he BTFO dependent origination.
You really can't and don't understand a single thing in buddhism.

>>17512619
>You didn't understand the argument put forth. Burton and William says conceptual constructed are either sustained by something unconstructed or they regress infinity. However there is still the possibility that conceptually constructed entities circle back to each other like a snake consuming its own tail over and over (ouroboros).
I did understand but I should have been more clear in my answer, I was pointing out that this answer fails because Buddhists give the answer of dependent origination to the question of why there is this cycle at all, but that this answer fails for the reason I elaborated in my post, and once dependent origination fails the ouroboros of conceptual constructs necessarily also collapses as logically untenable as well. I also don’t accept the ouroboros argument as valid either because if there is no consciousness or sentience that actually exists there is nothing that can be transmitted or receives those transmissions of concepts, if there is no real sentience in which they can be associated with or inhere in, they cannot function in a cycle, because that’s like saying a ring of insentient rocks pass their delusions onto one another. If there is no sentience thats real it’s inanity to speak of delusion being passed along; illusions don’t posses awareness or sentience, but for there to be delusions it automatically presupposes existing sentience.

> a conventional Indra's net is valid,
valid only at the level of conventional reality, which madhyamaka negates, leaving nothing actually existing, ergo nihilism
>again you keep making the mistake that ultimate existence of emptiness = nothing exists at all.
No I’m not
>Emptiness isn't Nothingness.
I didn’t say it was

>>17512868
>You really can't and don't understand a single thing in buddhism.
And yet you can’t refute a simple argument explaining how dependent origination is illogical nonsense, I don’t think you’re an authority on who or who does not understand Buddhism

>>17513195
>I did understand but I should have been more clear in my answer, I was pointing out that this answer fails because Buddhists give the answer of dependent origination to the question of why there is this cycle at all, but that this answer fails for the reason I elaborated in my post, and once dependent origination fails the ouroboros of conceptual constructs necessarily also collapses as logically untenable as well.
Not really, the 'why' question makes no sense. I already asked you in a previous thread 'why' Brahman exist, you could only come up with a Thomist 'because he does' answer (ie no answer at all). Cyclical existence is simply taken as an axiom, even by hindus. But even if we leave that argument aside, conceptual constructs can be said to be either regressing to infinity, supported by an unprovable 'constructor', or be connected like a web. The third case has not been proven to be invalid in itself, you are simply pushing one argument (dependent origination must have an ultimate unsustained cause as a 'why it must exist') to the ouroboros argument (that conceptual constructs are valid if they are connected like a spider's web) and think it 'necessarily also collapses' when conceptual constructions in conventional reality could still circle back into itself.

>valid only at the level of conventional reality, which madhyamaka negates, leaving nothing actually existing, ergo nihilism
Madhyamika doesn't negate conventional reality, you are again saying that it posits 'nothing exists'.
>No I’m not
you literally just did "leaving nothing actually existing", why are you denying it when we could all see what you've written.
>I didn’t say it was
You writing as if it was the case, countless people made the same mistake, even Ramanuja made it when he said Advaita amounted to nihilism for denying conventional reality.

>>17513209
>please refute my lack of knowledge on something I haven't even read
Ah yes, of course a hindu schizo posting on a forum with bad arguments to defend his beloved sectarian religion is somehow more of an authority than actual scholars who studied them for more years than you have lived. You have already been refuted and exposed several times over the years (and recently 2 days ago), all you do when you get BTFO is bump a thread for hours, wait for an opportunity to post a response when no one's around, then stop bumping the thread and hoping it gets archived because you want the last word thinking you've stood 'unrefuted' when in reality everyone moved on and never looked back. Then you would screencap your post or save the text in a notepad, only to endlessly repost it later when you butt into threads for the next shill operation. Imagine being fixated on this board 24/7, literally just waking up to post, all in order to astroturf Indo-thomist traditionalism without any success after 2.5 years. Sad really.

>>17506203
>bro, everything is like spheres and the spheres are alive and the spheres are our mind, but our mind is divided into two spheres which have to be synchronized in just the right way

Could anyone tell me why vajrayana aims at becoming enlightened as soon as possible since the bodhisattva vow is about becoming enlightened only after all other beings have left samsara? I don't get it

>>17510496
ohh I see. thanks anon

>>17514641
They have a messiah complex so they are the definition of one-upmanship.

Vajrayana tries to outdo mahayna just like mahayana tried (and failed) to outdo theravada (or rather the allegedly 18 schools)

They made up a path to be buddhas quickly because they want all ''sentient beings'' (in their view this includes trees and rocks because those have buddhanature too, ie a true self) to get enlightened and only a buddha can this.

>>17514726
This view of theravada as some kind of orthodoxy that is the closest to the buddha's "true teachings" is kind of ridiculous. Mahayana and theravada are both valuable

>>17505349
kek

>>17505219
Logging off the internet, going outside and talking to other people.

Who are the red lightening bolt chads? That realm looks pretty sick.

>>17514856
Going outside is good
Talking to other people is cringe

>>17514859
asuras

>>17515135
What's the lore on the Naga in Hinduism? They're supposedly reptilian men but It'd be cool to know how they fit in with everything else

>>17515135
>Asuras (Sanskrit: असुर) are a class of beings or power-seeking clans related to the more benevolent Devas (also known as Suras) in Hinduism.

They sound like bros. Not even edgy demons, just Gods that like kicking it.

>>17505329
Nothing. Money

>>17515217
What's it like being 16?

>>17505219
Just do what U.G Krishnamurti did. Good luck, winning the lottery and getting struck by lightning is more likely.

>>17515221
Stop shilling this bitter retard everywhere, schizo

>>17513814
>>17513814
>I already asked you in a previous thread 'why' Brahman exist
Because it’s held to be an eternal, independent, uncaused entity or thing. Buddhists can’t admit that this thing would exist because it falsifies sunyata and dependent origination. The fact of Brahman being eternal explains and accounts for it being there. To ask for any further reason, and to try to act like that is somehow a clinching argument actually is sophistic, because reasons for things are just causes spoken of differently, so to say that something is eternal and uncaused in actually completely synonymous with saying that there is no reason for it existing but it just is, so your argument amounts to “but what is the cause of the uncaused thing”, uncaused things don’t have causes for their existence anon! I don’t think you are stupid enough to not realize this but rather I think you are using spurious reasoning on purpose, i.e. you are being a sophist as is so common with Buddhist thinkers. Unlike Buddhism though there is no doctrine in Hinduism that is falsified by there being an eternal and uncaused entity.
> Cyclical existence is simply taken as an axiom, even by hindus.
Vedanta only accepts cyclical existence that’s sustained and caused by God, they don’t accept that it’s logical to say that it exists on its own independently. And anyways dependent origination is not mere cyclical existence but it refutes itself because of how Buddha explained it as 12-links of nescience and so forth. There can be no cyclic existence of it, because the aggregation of the links cannot be caused by dependent origination, because dependent origination cannot do anything unless already existing intact as the 12 links in aggregate form, nor can that aggregation be eternal and uncaused which falsifies sunyata and all things being co-dependent. So this throws a monkey wrench into whatever cycle you would want to claim is happening and prevents it from happening by making it logically impossible, when you say ‘b-b-but other Indians accept eternal cycles’ that doesn’t do a single thing to change this (because those other cycles don’t have the same in-built contradiction) and is just avoiding addressing why dependent origination is illogical

>>17515258
> Madhyamika doesn't negate conventional reality, you are again saying that it posits 'nothing exists'
Wrong, Madhyamaka does negate conventional reality by denying that there are any entities that are not conceptually constructed, and for Madhyamaka conceptual constructs are delusions, i.e. not actually real
> you literally just did "leaving nothing actually existing", why are you denying it when we could all see what you've written.
Pointing out that Madhyamaka says there are no entities existing in absolute reality is not the same thing as saying that Madhyamaka says nothing exists at all, for Madhyamaka says that constructs exist conventionally, which is not the same as saying nothing has any existence, but when you rationally analyze this claim of Madhyamaka though it leads to nihilism, however much they want to deny this, but that’s not the same as saying they openly and unapologetically teach nihilism as a doctrine which is what you are falsely accusing me of.
> even Ramanuja made it when he said Advaita amounted to nihilism for denying conventional reality.
Shankara admits there is an unconditioned ultimate reality though, Madhyamaka doesn’t

>>17515229
Funny guy :)

>>17515258
>Because it’s held to be an eternal, independent, uncaused entity or thing. Buddhists can’t admit that this thing would exist because it falsifies sunyata and dependent origination. The fact of Brahman being eternal explains and accounts for it being there. To ask for any further reason, and to try to act like that is somehow a clinching argument actually is sophistic, because reasons for things are just causes spoken of differently, so to say that something is eternal and uncaused in actually completely synonymous with saying that there is no reason for it existing but it just is, so your argument amounts to “but what is the cause of the uncaused thing”, uncaused things don’t have causes for their existence anon! I don’t think you are stupid enough to not realize this but rather I think you are using spurious reasoning on purpose, i.e. you are being a sophist as is so common with Buddhist thinkers. Unlike Buddhism though there is no doctrine in Hinduism that is falsified by there being an eternal and uncaused entity.
So why does Brahman exist then? You still haven't answered the actual question.

>Vedanta only accepts cyclical existence that’s sustained and caused by God, they don’t accept that it’s logical to say that it exists on its own independently. And anyways dependent origination is not mere cyclical existence but it refutes itself because of how Buddha explained it as 12-links of nescience and so forth. There can be no cyclic existence of it, because the aggregation of the links cannot be caused by dependent origination, because dependent origination cannot do anything unless already existing intact as the 12 links in aggregate form, nor can that aggregation be eternal and uncaused which falsifies sunyata and all things being co-dependent. So this throws a monkey wrench into whatever cycle you would want to claim is happening and prevents it from happening by making it logically impossible, when you say ‘b-b-but other Indians accept eternal cycles’ that doesn’t do a single thing to change this (because those other cycles don’t have the same in-built contradiction) and is just avoiding addressing why dependent origination is illogical
You are simply pivoting and making a separate point in order to hark back to your original thesis. Burton says conceptual constructs can only regress or be sustained by an unconstruct, Westerhoff however says that it can circle back unto itself like sheaves of reed leaning onto each other. This is perfectly rational, as Walser pointed out. What you are saying now is that 'actually cycles of anything cannot exist without god anyway so a cycle of co-dependent aggregates in samsara doesn't exist'. You are trying so hard to make your argument work, like trying to fit a piece in a puzzle that won't go in.

>>17515264
>and for Madhyamaka conceptual constructs are delusions, i.e. not actually real
Not even close
>Pointing out that Madhyamaka says there are no entities existing in absolute reality
Again not what Nagarjuna argues. Emptiness in ultimate reality =! Nothingness in either reality.
>Shankara admits there is an unconditioned ultimate reality though
Yes so does Nagarjuna, this is why you have to read him and not just decipher his ideas from 4chan posts.

>>17515258
>nor can that aggregation be eternal and uncaused which falsifies sunyata and all things being co-dependent
sorry to butt in but why does it falsify sunyata and co-dependency? Isn't samsara eternal?