/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.13772477]

Is nondualism just a cope?

[Anonymous No.13772483]

>>13772477
It is and it isn't.

[Anonymous No.13772804]

Buddhafags so insecure lol

[Anonymous No.13772810]

Dualism is the real cope

[Anonymous No.13772816]

>>13772810
You sure about that?

[Anonymous No.13772818]

>>13772810
cope

[Anonymous No.13772834]

>>13772804
this

[Anonymous No.13773151]

>>13772816
>>13772818
No

[Anonymous No.13773325]

can buddhists help me to understand how shunyata is not a non-dual concept? it just seems to me that they can't grasp the ontology of reality and are too attached to the phenomenal realm; ''insofar as the fundamental aspect of reality can't be found in the realm of manifestation therefore the realm of manifestation is based on and supported by nothing!''.
please elucidate these things to me, you all can't be so retarded

[Anonymous No.13773335]

>>13772477
You can't escape dualism but you also can't escape monism. Only fools cannot see the but linguistic difference of thought, just a pattern different in viewing the same thing.

[Anonymous No.13773347]

>>13772477
>we're all one

yes, it's a gay cope and it's not true. non dualism is mental illness

[Anonymous No.13773441]

>>13772477
No dualism is. Not as much of a cope as Omnibenevolence but a cope all the same. The idea that God is capable of evil is too frightening for most to digest

[Anonymous No.13773498]

>Problem of Other Minds
>Interaction Problem
>Hard Problem of Consciousness
You can claim that dualism is true once you have solved these problems with dualism. Until then, it's a nonsense ideal held by people with no imagination.

[Anonymous No.13773503]

>>13773441
He means mind/matter dualism, brainlet.

[Anonymous No.13773505]

>>13773325
it is completely non-dual but it isn’t monist
Describing reality as a Unity/oneness is just a perception and thus empty.
But yes shunyata is non-dual, however if you think it means “nothing exists” I doubt you’ve read many texts on the topic

[Anonymous No.13773547]

>>13773325
>'insofar as the fundamental aspect of reality can't be found in the realm of manifestation therefore the realm of manifestation is based on and supported by nothing!''.
This is not the teaching. It is not saying “reality is supported by nothing” but rather than phenomenal experience is lacking in self-existence/essence, and that questions of ontology (whether anything exists or does not exist objectively) are effectively pointless because all you have to work with is phenomenal experience, and any thoughts or intuitions of objectivity are also within that phenomenal experience: you cannot get around this. That is why the negative tetralemma goes:
>"It cannot be said to exist. It cannot be said not to exist. It cannot be said to both exist and not exist. It cannot be said to neither exist or not exist."
Objectifying things (not only in a positive way by asserting existence, but negatively as well by asserting non-existence) is the problem in Buddhism, and it is what creates the split of dualism (perceiver-perceived, object-subject).

[Anonymous No.13773555]

>>13773498
cringe philosophy 101 garbage kys

[Anonymous No.13773556]

>>13773555
>cringe philosophy 101 garbage
Yep, that's dualism.

[Anonymous No.13773563]

>>13773547
>phenomenal experience is lacking in self-existence/essence
in a phenomenal sense of course (not objective/ontological) as in all phenomenal experience is transitory, dependently (on other phenomena) arisen, lacking in any lasting stability.

[Anonymous No.13773582]

>>13772804
are you implying that OP is a Buddhist trying to shit on non-duality because of insecurity? Or that Buddhists are insecure in their own doctrine of non-duality and that is why one of them made this thread?
Buddhism teaches non-duality, by the way. Though instead of Advaita (not two, but one), Buddhism has Advaya (not two, not one).

[Anonymous No.13773758]

>>13773547
>because all you have to work with is phenomenal experience, and any thoughts or intuitions of objectivity are also within that phenomenal experience
Do you not recognize the different degrees of consciousness in different realms of experience?
More importantly, how could you affirm that
>all you have to work with is phenomenal experience
while claiming that
>phenomenal experience is lacking in self-existence/essence

If Buddhism does not comply with what I asked firstly, how is it any different from a nihilistic point of view?

[Anonymous No.13773803]

>>13772477
sure its a cope but what isn't these days. it can help make you feel less heavy

[Anonymous No.13773864]

>>13773325
Negation is determination. But all determinations are transient. Nothing has inherent existence, that is, no phenomenon exists in itself and by the virtue of itself, not in representation, not in the noumenon, and not in the mind. The only immutable thing in consciousness is its own negation, that is the mind without activity, without a point of reference.

[Anonymous No.13773950]

>>13773547
also, does
>It cannot [not] be said to exist. It cannot [not ] be said not to exist. It cannot [not] be said to both exist and not exist. It cannot [not] be said to neither exist or not exist.
mean anything to you?

>>13773864
What do you take as basis for negating determination; or affirming non-determinantionness of anything at all?

[Anonymous No.13774039]

>>13773950
The only non-determined or non-conditioned thing is negation. Though it can be determined by the fact of relative phenomena to it, yet it is what allows for relative phenomena (that is phenomena at all). It remains then non-determined as there is no difference between absolute determination and no determination at all.

Mind you, what I'm telling you is for the most part faithful to the various Buddhist ontologies, though most of them are on common ground.

[Anonymous No.13774090]

>>13772477
Help me here, I fail to see how non-d would be the cope. Doesn't that imply that physical is the stone cold end? Wouldn't dualism be the more escapist or cope option?

Should I stick with philosophy for a hobby? I feel a little uncertain.

[Anonymous No.13774097]

>>13772477
no, dualism can be subsumed into nondualism but not dualism into nondualism

[Anonymous No.13774124]

>>13774090
Neither inherently determines that there is an emotion and behavior registered as coping or escapism in the notion itself, its a question of ontology, the OP is memeing.

If we were to tackle that question, we'd have to talk about ethics which would stem from either being the case. But on a side note, Buddhism, which is a non-dual philosophy and religion--- has which have you directly interface with suffering and unsatisfactoriness. There exist meditations for contemplating corpses and such. The ultimate aim is escape though, absolute escape from rebirth. Mahayana Buddhism has the focus on attaining a high station in liberation, yet returning to aid others before your own ultimate escape.

[Anonymous No.13774139]

>>13774124
Okay, thank you, but the rebirth and all the dogma that people like to ignore in Buddhism, isn't that proposing another realm or level to existence not the material? How is that not dualist?

[Anonymous No.13774142]

Oh wait, I'm dumb, they probably mean symbolic rebirth, as in "as long as something is conscious" or something. Has to do with that holistic thing I think, which is suspect af.

[Anonymous No.13774198]

>>13774139
>the rebirth and all the dogma that people like to ignore in Buddhism, isn't that proposing another realm or level to existence not the material? How is that not dualist?

If you are interested, I suggest going on wikiepdia and then finding direct sources from the summations there. Stuff like this has been debated and explored to death, there is a lot of stuff to read.

What Buddhism proposes is the cessation of karma (action), and the end of rebirth. There are Pure Land Buddhists who wish to be reborn in a Buddha-field so that they could achieve enlightenment in a better condition, there are some easy analogies to make here to contemporary protestant sects or whatever. Especially with stuff like repeating Amitābha a few times and be guaranteed rebirth in a pure land. But in general, the ride doesn't end until full attainment.

Why would realms and modes of being to which we are not privy to imply dualism? Not even those things have a permanent inherent existence. There are sects of Buddhism which are entirely idealist, their ontology is likened to a dream, all sorts of things occur in a dream, there are many subjects, and many worlds-- but there is only one mind, and one substance.

The way Buddhists (its questionable with some traditions) explain rebirth without a soul or something akin to a soul--- is the notion of the mindstream. Everything in your mind is mutable, except the mind in itself which appears as empty. So, try to point to a soul if you can. Theravada Buddhism, which is the Orthodox form-- holds the objective world as existing along with other ''subtle'' worlds, all of these are co-arising and co-dependent, as is the mind which is generated in them through the aggregates of the senses, which may be ''material'' or ''subtle''. None of this necessitates a soul, and under examination no such thing is necessary for the system to function.

[Anonymous No.13774202]

>>13772477
No, of course not, we're all One bro, said one man to the other.

[Anonymous No.13774369]

>>13774202
you gotta break the conditioning maann

[Anonymous No.13774479]

>>13772477
So much so that Buddha had to take his ideas from the non-dualism of the early Upanishads predating him, really activates my almonds

[Anonymous No.13774669]

>>13773498
>Problem of Other Minds
I don't even understand why this is an issue that dualism suffers from. If anything it makes dualism more appealing when compared with alternatives.
>Interaction Problem
There are multiple different ways to explain this and even making it a "problem" for dualism is just a product of assuming some other worldview that the other person may not necessarily hold. Examples
>world isn't real at all and is just a projection of the mind, i.e. all is illusion
Then there are no physical things for the mind to act on at all because physical existence is actually an impossibility.
>the mind acts on the physical world in the same way God does
One of the most fun solutions to this.
>radio model
Your brain is like a radio receiver that picks up a signal your mind generates in the physical world. Your body does not generate the signal (i.e. you) but instead receives it.
Multiple other solutions.
>Hard Problem of Consciousness
Again I feel like this is the kind of thing that invites dualism rather than refutes it.