/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.17513308]

Where do I start with Shankara? How did he manage to refute every Buddhist in India?

[Anonymous No.17513320]

>>17513308
>How did he manage to refute every Buddhist in India?
isn't this a myth started by his fans?

[Anonymous No.17513321]

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.

[Anonymous No.17513349]

>>17513321
Buddhism was a reaction to Hinduism. Buddhists were essentially ancient antifa members that were mad at the caste system (i.e. last men), so they took Hinduism and tried to negate the Self. This failed, obviously, but the arguments between Buddhists and Hindus definitely helped grow the philosophical tradition, culminating in Shankara (pbuh) who refuted every Buddhist he came across and restored basedness in India.

[Anonymous No.17513835]

>>17513320
Yes
He didn't refute shit, never engaged a Buddhist in debate and seethed uncontrollably until his premature death (as a virgin I might add)

[Anonymous No.17513878]

>geunonfag is reposting the same thread with the SAME response from yesterday

>>17503269
>>17503495

[Anonymous No.17513965]

>>17513878
lol he really is stuck in digital samsara reincarnating himself in new threads

[Anonymous No.17513981]

>>17513878>>17513965
Guenonfag and the thousand year seethe

[Anonymous No.17513991]

>>17513878
>literal parrot
Are all advaitins NPCs or is it just him?

[Anonymous No.17514002]

>>17513308
how did this poo managed to be triggered by the buddha 2500 years after his death?

[Anonymous No.17514003]

my app thinks Shankara is a female wtf ?

[Anonymous No.17514099]

>>17513878
Gotama-sensei... please accept my mind as a rent-free dwelling place for you from this day forward

[Anonymous No.17514109]

ADVAITIN FUCKING SHITS

[Anonymous No.17514619]

>>17513349
Cleaned up some of the messy language:

Buddhism was a reaction to Hinduism. Buddhists were ancient antifa members that resented the caste system—i.e., last men—so they took Hinduism and tried to negate the Self. This failed, obviously, but the arguments between Hindus and Buddhists helped grow India’s philosophical tradition, culminating in Shankara (pbuh) and leading to the irrevocable refutation of the school of sophistry known as (((Buddhism))).

[Anonymous No.17514632]

I enjoy these threads but please stop making them anti-Buddhism anon, Shankara and the Buddhists both have a lot of synergy in their outlooks and this just makes these threads hostile.
Let's just be frens. Pls no bully.

[Anonymous No.17514639]

>>17514632
You don't know guenonfag?

[Anonymous No.17514715]

>>17514639
Who is guenonfag?

[Anonymous No.17514732]

>>17514715
A schizo who's been copy pasting walls of text and samefagging about shankara and advaita for four years now. Search that name on warosu.org.

[Anonymous No.17514765]

>>17514732
I have never heard of him, but he sounds like a light unto this board. How do I learn more about him? Has he written any books?

[Anonymous No.17514782]

>>17514715
>Who is guenonfag?

Four years of this, and this >>17514765 (also him)

He has integrated joking about samefagging and spamming into his persona but he started out with a straight year of having whole conversations with himself about how based advaita is and how buddhists/christians are stupid, he only integrated it as a joke after a long period of people accusing him of samefagging and him denying it. He has had some truly crazy antics, constant liar, very rude, lies about arguments with people to say he "won" etc

Killed hinduism discussions on /lit/ and the old traditionalism threads. actually made them bannable with his antics

[Anonymous No.17514788]

>>17514782
Used to be daily threads like this

Yet he was surprised that people saw it for what it was, spent a long time denying it. Now he pretends to be ironic

[Anonymous No.17514854]

>>17514782
>>17514788
These images read like /x/-tier conspiracy theories.

[Anonymous No.17514910]

>>17514854
A screenshot of a guy making the same thread for months? Where's the conspiracy. Guy made thread.

Wait til you find out that he posted his semi naked pics and tried to force them as a meme.

[Anonymous No.17514948]

>>17514619
Why do you call Buddhism sophistry?

[Anonymous No.17514950]

>>17514910
Reminder guenonfag is a swedish pederast
>>17514948
He doesn't understand it and doesn't realize he himself is a crypto buddhist

[Anonymous No.17514955]

>>17514910
It’s a bit of a leap. How do I know that you’re not Guenonfag trying to throw me off his trail? He seems extremely intelligent, so I wouldn’t put it past him.

[Anonymous No.17514968]

>>17514632
Literally this. Guenonfag killed all Vedanta/Buddhist/nondualist discussion on /lit/, otherwise we could all be frens.

[Anonymous No.17514979]

>>17514968
Buddhist threads still get good posters

[Anonymous No.17514992]

>>17514979
Oh, that's great then. I haven't been to /lit/ in months. Imagine my amusement on seeing a textbook Guenonfag thread after so long.

[Anonymous No.17515013]

>>17514992
There've been some comfy eastern philosophy threads lately, guenonfag is still a disease but people discuss things regardless

[Anonymous No.17515079]

YOU ARE SO FUCKING GAY DUDE. I HOPE BRAHMAN GIVES YOU A SUNBURN YOU DUMB FAG

[Anonymous No.17515125]

>>17514619
Slight change:

Buddhism was a reaction to Hinduism. Buddhists were ancient antifa members—i.e., last men—that resented the caste system, so they took Hinduism and tried to negate one of its essential tenets, the Self. This failed, obviously, but the arguments between Hindus and Buddhists helped grow India’s philosophical tradition, culminating in Shankara (pbuh) and leading to the irrevocable refutation of the school of sophistry known as (((Buddhism))).

[Anonymous No.17515141]

>>17513321
>called a cryptobuddhist by most Hindus
I'm Hindu and have never heard that. The Shankaracharya tradition he established in the North, East, South and West of India were each associated with one of four Vedas. His Bhaja Govindam, with its popular saying of "Bhagavad Gita Kinchita Dhita Ganga Jalalava Kanika Pita," is a work that emphasizes the importance of devotion to God and explains how intellectual understanding is only part of the path to self realization.
He was a Jnana and a Bhakta both.

[Anonymous No.17515201]

>>17513308
start with Guenon's(pbuh) book on Vedanta

[Anonymous No.17515279]

>>17515141
What do you think of the Buddha? In fact what do average Indians think of him?

[Anonymous No.17515312]

>>17515141
Shankara cannot have been a bhakta because he denied the independent reality of gods just as much as our own independent reality. Shiva is no more real than you are.

[Anonymous No.17515360]

>>17515312
not him but I always found it weird how shankara rationalised bhakti with his pramana based worldview. Apparently his smarta tradition is suppose to reconcile worship of puranic deities, indeed modern Bhaktins cites the idea of saguna/nirguna Brahman as justification of their devotion to a single deity. But it still seems like they were trying come up with reasons to make it consistent, when in reality in looks like a convoluted mess.

[Anonymous No.17515365]

Please Brahman illuminate a harem of anime girl maidservants for me to abuse

[Anonymous No.17515367]

>>17513308
>Where do I start with Shankara?
1) first prepare by reading Man and His Becoming According to the Vedanta by Guenon
2) Atma-Bodha
3) 8 Upanishad commentaries of Shankara (trsl by Gambhirananda)
4) Brihadaranyaka Up. commentary
5) Chandogya Up. commentary
6) Gita commentary
7) Brahma Sutra Bhasya
8) the remaining writings in any order
>How did he manage to refute every Buddhist in India?
Entering into sannyasa from the young age of 8 allowed him to focus on honing his razor-sharp intellect without the distractions of mundane life
>>17513349
This, Buddhism arose out of slave morality
>>17513878
>>17513965
I have not created a thread about Shankara, Buddhism or eastern philosophy in months actually, I just post in ones other people make. It seems that some of the posters here enjoy trolling the Buddhists or enjoy seeing me argue against Buddhism because they keep posting these threads that inevitably descend into me pointing out Buddhism is illogical and then all the Buddhists on /lit/ chimping out and trying to make everything into a personal attack on me. Perhaps the point is to expose how all the Buddhists here act like petulant children, if so whoever’s posting them is succeeding.
>>17514782
>he only integrated it as a joke after a long period of people accusing him of samefagging and him denying it. He has had some truly crazy antics, constant liar, very rude, lies about arguments with people to say he "won" etc
None of this is true, you just have schizophrenic apophenia and so everytime you see a post that you don’t like or that you think its me you attribute it to me, like less than 10% of the screencaps that you post are actually my posts, try seeing a psychiatrist and getting a script for Risperidone buddy
>>17514948
Not him, but because they use very spurious reasoning in their arguments
>>17514968
Not true, we have great discussions all the time. I have lost track of how many times people have thanked me for answering their questions. People talking about Hinduism in one thread and being critical of Buddhist doctrine is not “killing discussion”. In fact it’s me and the rest of the posters who usually engage in normal discussion while the Buddhists cry and whine about guenonfag in the background for the millionth time

[Anonymous No.17515374]

>>17515367
Holy fucking schizo

[Anonymous No.17515377]

>>17515367
Meds

[Anonymous No.17515380]

>>17515367
All this text just to say you're a crypto-buddhist...

[Anonymous No.17515387]

>>17513308
>>17513349
>>17515367
>those pictures and filenames
kek you couldn't samefag more obviously if you tried
this is really sad

[Anonymous No.17515390]

>>17515367
WHY DOES HE ALWAYS DENY HIS INSANITY WHEN HE KNOWS ALL OF US ARE COMPLETELY AWARE OF IT AND HAVE EVEN HAD THIS EXACT CONVERSATION BEFORE

WHY DOES HE ALWAYS LIE? WHO ARE YOU LYING TO NIGGA? YOU ARE TAKING MY SANDWICH OUT OF MY HANDS AND SAYING "I DIDN'T TAKE YOUR SANDWICH"

THERE ARE LIKE 8 OF US HERE

WHO ARE YOU PERFORMING FOR?

[Anonymous No.17515408]

>>17515312
>Shankara cannot have been a bhakta because he denied the independent reality of gods just as much
That’s a mistake on par with saying “Shankara didn’t accept the Vedas as valid because he says Brahman just exists alone in absolute reality without the Vedas or anything else.” Bhakti was not the primary path to liberation that Advaita teaches, but Shankara in his writings still condones as valid the paths of Bhakti-yoga and Karma-yoga that householders follow (as the path of knowledge is only for the man of renunciation) as indirectly leading to and preparing oneself for the dawning of knowledge. And Advaita also teaches that even non-renunciates who follows those two paths can attain entry into the Brahmaloka at death through meditation on the qualified form of Brahman, and moksha can be attained while in Brahmaloka, so from a certain perspective they can be seen as helping to lead one to moksha indirectly.
>>17515360
>But it still seems like they were trying come up with reasons to make it consistent, when in reality in looks like a convoluted mess.
How so? You didn’t explain how anything is convoluted or inconsistent

[Anonymous No.17515409]

>>17515390
He is genuinely mentally ill
There is no other explanation. This dude is fucking unhinged.

[Anonymous No.17515450]

>>17515387
‘Guenonfag’ here, I’m not OP

[Anonymous No.17515455]

>>17515390
>WHY DOES HE ALWAYS LIE?
I have never once lied in all of my conversations on 4chan

[Anonymous No.17515471]

>>17514968
>otherwise we could all be frens.
That would be true if it weren’t for the Buddhists insisting on coming in and saying that the Hindus are all wrong and that there is no Atman or Brahman. When I first started to post about Vedanta on /lit/ I didn’t give a shit about Buddhism, I only started to study why Buddhist doctrine is nonsense after I got tired of seeing Buddhists barge in and say the Hindus got it all wrong for the hundredth time. You brought it upon yourselves by incessantly proselytizing and by acting like pompous asses

[Anonymous No.17515477]

>>17515471

[Anonymous No.17515480]

>>17515477
btfo once again, as always

[Anonymous No.17515490]

>>17515367
I am going to fuck you so hard you get back pains and incur frame damage

[Anonymous No.17515502]

>>17515477
Yeah that doesn’t contradict anything I have ever said, I thought Buddhism might be true for like 5 months when I was 14 year old kid (before my faculties of rational analysis had fully developed) that’s what I meant when I said “used to be a buddhist”, I should have been more clear but whatever. I never gave a shit about showing or arguing why Buddhism is illogical until I started to see Buddhists swarm every thread talking about Hindu philosophy to say that it was all wrong

[Anonymous No.17515507]

>>17515490
I’m pretty tall and have trained in martial arts, I could probably kick your ass

[Anonymous No.17515512]

>>17515507
You are a twink. We have all seen your nudes. Now bend that yellow belt ass over

[Anonymous No.17515517]

>>17515502
this dude literally got mindbroken by buddhists holy shit

[Anonymous No.17515532]

>>17515517
Nothing about me is broken, in fact studying Buddhism to see why it was illogical made me learn a lot about the nature of logic and argumentation, it was a positive experience that I have enjoyed and I still do (that’s why I continue to do it) there is a unique satisfaction to pointing out the hole in the sophists argument and watching them squirm and writhe with anger. I went from having a bare bones understanding of basic buddhism to being able to explain in depth how all the schools of Indian Buddhism are refuted by their own logical contradictions.

[Anonymous No.17515534]

>>17515532
cope

[Anonymous No.17515542]

>>17515512
This is not the first time you have directed weird sexual threats at me. As well as suffering from schizoprehnic apophenia I believe that you also seem to have some sort of weird homoerotic love-hate obsession with me.

[Anonymous No.17515543]

>>17515532
>spent four years debating buddhists
>still makes the same basic mistakes and can't argue for shit
I don't think you're cut out for this, honestly

[Anonymous No.17515552]

>>17515534
Coping about what? That Buddhism is inherently illogical (unless you pretend it was secretly Hinduism all along!) and was refuted by Hindu philosophers and accordingly died out in India? I’m just supporting with arguments what was already confirmed on the ground so to speak

[Anonymous No.17515559]

>>17515543
>>still makes the same basic mistakes
like?
>and can't argue for shit
Ah yes, that’s why not a single Buddhist on 4chan can explain how the 12-links of dependent origination can exist as an aggregated chain if that aggregation can neither be uncaused (which falsifies everything being co-dependent) or be caused by dependent origination (which it can’t do unless already existing as an aggregate)

[Anonymous No.17515561]

>>17513308
You don't. Just avoid Advaita Vedanta since it is crypto-dualistic just like buddhism (and this is the reason why they keep ''refuting'' each other, for both are crypto-dualistic). If you want the traditional theology of Indo, read the works of Abhinavagupta. Shaivism is the oldest religion having traces back to Mohenjo Daro.

[Anonymous No.17515564]

>>17515559
This was answered many times in many threads, and every time you pretend nothing happened. Cope.

[Anonymous No.17515568]

Reminder that guenonfag actually posted this

[Anonymous No.17515570]

>>17515564
>This was answered many times in many threads
It never has been answered once, and the fact that you would even bother to say that instead of just posting the explanation yourself or linking to a thread which does shows how much you are in denial

[Anonymous No.17515573]

>>17515568
jesus christ calling this guy insane is an understatement

[Anonymous No.17515580]

>>17515564
That anon is right. Buddhism is illogical dualism.

[Anonymous No.17515582]

>>17515570
Not gonna play that game with you, maybe a more gullible anon will. Keep seething about Sri "cryptobuddhist" Shankara being eternally refuted and irrelevant

[Anonymous No.17515586]

>>17515568
Did you already forget that you have also accused me of being anti-semitic and right-wing? Why would I have a communist fursona then? It’s evidence of your schizophrenic apophenia that every single post related to Hinduism or Guenon that you find offensive or weird you wrongly attribute to me

[Anonymous No.17515591]

>>17515561
>>17515580
Buddhism is very clearly nondualistic, read CHADgarjuna

[Anonymous No.17515602]

is this a guenonfag humiliation thread?

[Anonymous No.17515603]

>>17515582
>Not gonna play that game with you
>y-yea your argument was refuted
>no I wont say how or give a source
>that’s just playing a game, to substantiate my own statements

[Anonymous No.17515606]

>>17515559
>Ah yes, that’s why not a single Buddhist on 4chan can explain how the 12-links of dependent origination can exist as an aggregated chain if that aggregation can neither be uncaused (which falsifies everything being co-dependent) or be caused by dependent origination (which it can’t do unless already existing as an aggregate)
Isn't your answer to this that God is the 13th cause? Woah mind blown

[Anonymous No.17515611]

>>17515586
aren't you actually anti-semitic and right wing? why do we have to accuse you of something that you profess yourself to be?

[Anonymous No.17515613]

>>17515602

[Anonymous No.17515615]

>>17515602
Yes

[Anonymous No.17515616]

>>17515561
The connection of Shaivism to Mohenjo Daro is very weak, there is an image of a horned, sitting figure but interpreting it as Shiva is hugely speculative.

[Anonymous No.17515618]

>>17515591
All Nagarjuna does is to deny it with an insistent NO. ''Buddhism ends up reforcing the duality of samsara-nirvana'' ''NO'', ''So samsara and nirvana are the same thing, indistinct from each other?'' ''UH...K-K-INDA'' ''How so then, could you explain?'' ''NO''.
It ends up being the same as Vedanta Ajativada, there is no reality but Brahman but there is also no liberation at all, nothing but Brahman, however you live you ''liberate'' yourself since you are already liberated.

[Anonymous No.17515624]

>>17515606
>Isn't your answer to this that God is the 13th cause?
No, because Hinduism doesn’t teach dependent origination because its not illogical like Buddhism

[Anonymous No.17515627]

>>17515616
>the same epithet of Mohenjo-Daro's Shiva was addressed to Rudra/Shiva in the Vedas
>highly speculative
cope

[Anonymous No.17515638]

>>17515624
Really, so it doesn't teach rebirth and attachment to an illusory reality and sooofering and so forth?

[Anonymous No.17515640]

>>17515602
>>17515615
baste

[Anonymous No.17515646]

>>17515611
My point was that only a person being disingenuous or foolish would also then think I made that post about the furry thing

[Anonymous No.17515661]

>>17515638
That’s not the same thing as pratityasamutpada. Vedanta teaches transmigration not rebirth which is different.
> illusory reality
thats an oxymoron

[Anonymous No.17515664]

>>17515627
There is no "epithet" of the Mohenjo Daro figure, the Indus Valley Script hasn't even been decifered.

[Anonymous No.17515668]

>twelve links with no origin
or
>an origin with no origin
Neither make sense, both are reliant on faith

[Anonymous No.17515682]

>>17513308
refuted by pic related

[Anonymous No.17515689]

>>17515664
>Paśupati "Lord of all animals" was originally an epithet of Rudra in the Vedic period[1] and now is an epithet of Shiva.[2]
Also compare the Pashupati figure with a picture of Rudra/Shiva you'll see a three-faced being with gazelle horns (bonus is the yogic position of Pashupati).

[Anonymous No.17515711]

>>17515668
>Neither make sense
There is nothing inherently illogical in saying something exists eternally without any origin or cause for itself. Dependent origination is inherently illogical while the former isn’t.

[Anonymous No.17515717]

>>17515661
>Scholars have noted inconsistencies in the list, and regard it to be a later synthesis of several older lists. The first four links may be a mockery of the Vedic-Brahmanic cosmogony, as described in the Hymn of Creation of Veda X, 129 and the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad. These were integrated with a branched list which describe the conditioning of mental processes, akin to the five skandhas. Eventually, this branched list developed into the standard twelvefold chain as a linear list. While this list describes the processes which give rise to rebirth, it also analyzes the arising of dukkha as a psychological process, without the involvement of an atman.

[Anonymous No.17515718]

>>17515682
what were his arguments?

[Anonymous No.17515720]

>>17515711
Dependent origination exists eternally without any origin or cause for itself, brainlet

[Anonymous No.17515724]

>>17515711
>something exists eternally without any origin or cause for itself.
happy you finally admitted your subscription to a dualistic philosophy

[Anonymous No.17515728]

>>17515717
Yes, some scholars think that dependent origination may have been based on Hindu cosmology, this wouldn’t be surprising since almost everything else about Buddha’s teaching were also stolen from the Upanishads and Vedas, but this does not mean that Hinduism teaches pratityasamutpada

[Anonymous No.17515735]

>>17515279
Incarnation of Vishnu. Associated with the pure intellect. The Hindu view is that his followers messed up his original teaching almost immediately and complicated it.

[Anonymous No.17515736]

>>17515720
>>17515711
lmao see how this thread is so revealing, you buddhists and advaitins are twin brothers fighting each other

[Anonymous No.17515743]

>>17515720
>Dependent origination exists eternally without any origin or cause for itself
Then the Buddhist axiom that all things arise on the basis of other things and that there is no self-subsistent eternal existence is falsified

[Anonymous No.17515744]

>>17515736
Yes, advaita is cryptobuddhism, literally everyone knows this

[Anonymous No.17515746]

>>17515728
But doesn't the jiva become ignorant because of Brahman wielding his power of maya and so lead to future incarnations until one realizes suny— I mean Brahman is really Atman?

[Anonymous No.17515751]

>>17515743
Asking for proof of causation implies belief in causation

[Anonymous No.17515770]

>>17515743
>all things arise on the basis of other things
Not what is unconditioned
You seem unfamiliar with buddhism, start with "in the buddha's words"

[Anonymous No.17515779]

>>17515668
or
>infinite causal chain
Keep in mind that if you reject this you're also rejecting the Vedas, which is simply incoherent.

[Anonymous No.17515783]

>>17515735
>The Hindu view is that his followers messed up his original teaching almost immediately and complicated it.
In the Vishnu Purana it says that Vishnu incarnated as Buddha to teach false doctrines to demons. The Vishnu Purana does not say that the teachings or Buddhism were ever good or pure to begin with. I think one reason that its not uncommon among some Indian Hindus to view Buddha positively is that they only here that Buddha was an avatar of Vishnu but they don’t look into the details and see that Vishnu taught false doctrines as Buddha and so they wrongly assume that Buddhism must be good since it comes from Vishnu

>In order to defeat the demons ( daityas ) who had succeeded in obtaining great powers through religious austerities, Visnu came down to earth disguised as an ascetic and began teaching doctrines contrary to the Vedas. First, disguising himself as the founder of the Jaina school, he taught the doctrine of anekāntavāda (perspectivism or “non-one-sidedness”) to the group of demons. Then, moving on to another group, he changed his outfit and, appearing as the Buddha, taught that animal sacrifices are immoral and so forth. By this means, the demons lost all of the powers they had attained, and were summarily massacred by the gods.
>This story is remarkable because it accomplishes two goals simultaneously. First, it manages to subsume Buddhism and Jainism under orthodox Brahmanism, by demonstrating that both Mahāvīra (if that is indeed who is portrayed—he is nameless in the Visnu Purāna ) and the Buddha were incarnations of Visnu. Second, it completely discredits the actual content of the doctrines of these two sects, by suggesting that the teachings of Buddhism and Jainism are intentionally false and nonsensical. The dupes are the Buddhists and Jainas, who do not understand that the source of all of the teachings they defend so vehemently is a divine trick.

[Anonymous No.17515784]

>>17515751
so what is the point of following the words of the buddha? if there is no relation to it and liberation, what is the point of karma if there is no causal correlation at all since it is just a ''belief''?

>>17515770
so the conditioned is arised by the unconditioned? they are cause and effect?

[Anonymous No.17515787]

>>17515779
>>infinite causal chain
The issue is in determining the reason for the twelve links

[Anonymous No.17515793]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_unanswered_questions

When will you retards finally come to terms with the fact that Buddhism does not provide a complete metaphysical system and makes no attempt to?

[Anonymous No.17515802]

>>17515787
So what you're really asking is "what causes avidya, ignorance". The answer, is
>something in the infinite causal chain

>>17515784
Just because something is "A belief" doesn't mean that it doesn't have some truth to it. The Mahayana answer to this is "exactly", just wake up and stop being ignorant. Can't do it? There you go, a demonstration that these systems, although not 100% truthful, have some reality to them. You're already enlightened, you just have to realize it. If you can't do that instantly, you'll have to do it the hard way. Luckily, the Buddha came along and showed us how that hard way works.

[Anonymous No.17515806]

>>17515668
Why do you want an origin in the first place?

You know it's not because you want one that there is one, right?

[Anonymous No.17515811]

>>17515787
>The issue is in determining the reason for the twelve links
it's not issue and it's irrelevant in buddhism

[Anonymous No.17515827]

>>17515802
>>17515806
>>17515811
Yeah but why does the chain exist in the first place? How is it possible that it was always like this?
If there is no origin then is dependent origination unconditioned?
Why is it irrelevant in Buddhism to know why dependent origination exists?

[Anonymous No.17515830]

>>17515783
>god causes ignorance as a purposive manipulation of worldly affairs and gaslights entire religions into fighting with his chosen people
What a loser

[Anonymous No.17515838]

>>17515802
>The Mahayana answer to this
What's the theravada answer?

[Anonymous No.17515842]

>>17515787
>why must something exist
this is basically what you're saying and its laughable, go ahead and say it out loud again.

[Anonymous No.17515851]

>>17515770
>Not what is unconditioned
So are you now saying that there are two unconditioned things in Buddhisn then? Pratityasamutpada and Nirvana? Also what you are saying is not even true since Buddha says that the cycle of dependent origination can be brought to an end and anything that has unconditional existence cannot be ended
>>17515751
>bro causation isn’t real so I can just make up whatever bullshit claim I want and call it philosophy and nobody can disprove it
lol

If causation isn’t real or doesn’t exist then dependent origination cannot give rise to or account for samsara, rebirth, etc and all of Buddhism collapses because dependent origination involves causation when one link of the chain gives rise to another

>>17515746
>but doesn't the jiva become ignorant because of Brahman wielding his power of maya
Yes, but that’s not dependent origination

[Anonymous No.17515862]

>>17515802
you didnt answer anything, you just said that yeah it is a belief but it is also true, i know that there can be true beliefs, but what is the point of that prior post then, ''we can only have proof of causation if we believe in it''?

[Anonymous No.17515863]

>>17515827
>>Why is it irrelevant in Buddhism to know why dependent origination exists?
The goal is to end dukkha and even if the first cause was a legit thing, instead of just an idea by bugmen, it is not useful for the purpose of buddhism.

anyway, there is no first cause. you can't find a moment where there is no ignorance [liek a pre-samsara thing], then ignorance [ie samsra], then no ignorance again [nirvana]

[Anonymous No.17515866]

>>17515838
Shut the fuck up and meditate, you can't put all of this into words anyways so stop trying. It's causing you harm, and makes you unhappy.

>>17515827
>Why is it irrelevant in Buddhism to know why dependent origination exists?
It's not that it's irrelevant, it's that language can't put the entire universe into neat little boxes. "Cow" can't even 100% grasp the entirety of a fucking cow, and you expect to divine the principles of the universe perfectly out of the ether and put it into whatever language you prefer? C'mon man. The entire project of trying to create linguistic structures to perfectly describe reality (or worse, describe reality BETTER than reality) is on its face absurd.

[Anonymous No.17515871]

>>17515784
>so what is the point of following the words of the buddha? if there is no relation to it and liberation, what is the point of karma if there is no causal correlation at all since it is just a ''belief''?
Dependent origination is meant to explain impermanence and the interdependence of all arisen phenomena. It's primary purpose is not to fend off metaphysical arguments for theism, which would argue the 12 are impossible without a 13 to originate them, which completely misses the point. 12 is just a number. There are a lot of numbered lists in Buddhism, like a lot. And as far as explanations go, it is true that phenomena arise in dependence on other phenomena and at no point do we find anything permanent, singular, and independent, unless we make one up.

[Anonymous No.17515877]

>>17515787
>noooooo you have to show me how I can be my own grandfather

[Anonymous No.17515886]

>>17515779
>Keep in mind that if you reject this you're also rejecting the Vedas, which is simply incoherent.
False, because the Vedic layer of the Upanishads ultimately negate the chain as being an unreal appearance of Brahman’s power and that there was just Brahman all along. The infinite causal chain is not taken as a self-sufficient thing existing eternally as Buddhism does which is logically incoherent but in Advaita this causal chain only appears to be so to ignorant beings because it is just Brahman’s power appearing to be a causal chain, but it actually doesn’t exist as such.

[Anonymous No.17515888]

Reminder that the Hindu anon won't apply his own standard to Hinduism

>why is it possible that Maya exists?
>because its just Brahman's power
>ok but why
>something something uncaused
>ok but why
>b-b-because it just is ok?

[Anonymous No.17515890]

>>17515871
yeah yeah the thing is what dependent origination will ontologically implies. see >>17515851 for example.

[Anonymous No.17515898]

>>17515851
>If causation isn’t real or doesn’t exist then dependent origination cannot give rise to or account for samsara, rebirth, etc and all of Buddhism collapses because dependent origination involves causation when one link of the chain gives rise to another
Yeah you are the one asking for the cause of causation. You already believe things cause other things or you wouldn't ask. You however take this a step further and cause something yourself, a deity, and then argue he caused you without cause for himself.

[Anonymous No.17515903]

>>17515863
>>17515866
Thanks anons, this was what I wanted to understand.

[Anonymous No.17515907]

>>17515802
>what causes avidya, ignorance". The answer, is
>>something in the infinite causal chain
That’s impossible when the infinite causal chain depends on ignorance for its own existence (its the first link in the chain of dependent origination)

[Anonymous No.17515910]

>>17515877
What?

[Anonymous No.17515918]

>>17515890
Mahayana Buddhists assimilate all these metaphysical terms to emptiness. So you are correct that dependent origination is samsara, or that there is no nirvana without samsara, or that appearances and emptiness go together, and so forth.

[Anonymous No.17515929]

>>17515918
so it is basically Vedanta ajativada?

[Anonymous No.17515940]

>>17515871
>it is true that phenomena arise in dependence on other phenomena
then dependent origination cannnot be uncaused or unconditioned! Are you seeing now how Buddhism contradicts itself at every turn?
>>17515811
>it's not issue and it's irrelevant in buddhism
Yes it is because it shows that pratityasamutpada is logically incoherent and thus that Buddhism is a false doctrine

[Anonymous No.17515941]

>>17515898
because what is conditioned is conditioned and what is unconditioned is unconditioned. are you retarded?

[Anonymous No.17515943]

>>17515929
>no Vedas
>no god
>no self
Yeah sure it's all the same

[Anonymous No.17515950]

>>17515910
>i made up god as my uncaused originator now prove he doesn't exist

[Anonymous No.17515953]

>>17515689
Shiva isn't traditionally depicted with gazelle horns, there's no evidence of yogic practices in early vedic times, and it's not clear that the figure has three faces. An alternative interpretation draws parallels to Elamite seated bull figures, and the Mohenjo Daro figure does seem to have hoof-like hands.

[Anonymous No.17515969]

>>17515941
>what do you mean things cause things what about superthing you are just stupid

[Anonymous No.17515992]

>>17513878
he's also infiltrating other threads as we speak

>>17515694
>>17515980
I legitimately fear for his mental sanity.

[Anonymous No.17515993]

>>17513349
Retard casts can be changed in ancient India the British and Portuguese fucked with Indian history for years and made it look like it if you born as dalit your dalit. But there are hundreds of examples of people changing casts. Turing shatriyas into dalti and vice versa. Learn Sanskrit if you want to know about Hinduism. It's The way

[Anonymous No.17515997]

>>17515907
That'd only be the case if the causal chain was finite, which it isn't.

[Anonymous No.17515998]

>>17515953
Rudra wields a gazelle in one of his hands.
Pashupati is seated in a yogic position, this is a fact, i dont care whether you like it or not.
And yes Pashupati is depicted with three faces just look at the fucking picture, search on google PASHUPATI and click on Images. For fuck’s sake.
Who is the one speculating?

[Anonymous No.17516004]

>>17515943
I mean their dualistic metaphysics, dum dum.

[Anonymous No.17516007]

>>17515940
It is caused by itself
DO is twelve links, it's not a unique cause. The twelfth link causes the first which causes the second etc

[Anonymous No.17516014]

>>17515969
>what do you mean an uncaused cause is uncaused and unconditioned
So we have a buddhist denying the distinction between conditioned and unconditioned?

[Anonymous No.17516023]

>>17515888
All of those are easy to solve, at least for Advaita, which doesn’t contain the inherent and irresolvable contradictions of Buddhism
>>why is it possible that Maya exists?
Because Brahman is an eternal, uncaused and omnipotent entity, who wields maya as his power and whose nature it is to exist eternally while always doing so
>>because its just Brahman's power
>>ok but why
To ask why is to ask for the cause of something, but uncaused things by definition don’t have a cause. This does not lead to contradiction like dependent origination though, because Buddhists cannot admit dependent origination to be an eternal, uncaused and unconditioned thing without it violating other Buddhist axioms, while Brahman existing as uncaused does not violate any axioms of Hinduism

>>17515898
>Yeah you are the one asking for the cause of causation.
No, I’m not, because pratityasamutpada is not the same thing as the concept of causation, I’m only asking for the cause of pratitayasamutpada and am pointing out that the Buddhist cannot give any answer to it that doesn’t violate another axiom of Buddhism, but to not ascribe it any cause makes it uncaused with violates other Buddhist axioms, so whichever way Buddhists turn to resolve the issue they face inherent contradiction, which shows that Buddhism is a false and illogical doctrine.
>>17515918
>or that there is no nirvana without samsara
if Nirvana is dependent on other things (which it would be if there was no Nirvana without samsara) then its not unconditioned and you are contradicting Buddhas description of it as the Unconditioned

[Anonymous No.17516029]

>>17516014
Show me your unconditioned phenomena. You are going to tell me that there are unconditioned phenomena? So now you don't believe Brahman is wielding His power of maya after all?

[Anonymous No.17516040]

I don't get all of these autistic arguments. Seems like debating over things with no substance. Why not just learn the basics and then meditate? Why torment yourself with things you'll never have the answer to?

[Anonymous No.17516041]

>>17516023
>To ask why is to ask for the cause of something, but uncaused things by definition don’t have a cause. This does not lead to contradiction like dependent origination though

[Anonymous No.17516049]

>>17516040
There's hope for you yet anon. Beware the path of the atmangelion

[Anonymous No.17516058]

>>17516029
Im not an advaitin, just as maya is dependent and caused by brahman or absolute, unconditioned, samsara is by an absolute, unconditioned be it nirvana or whatever else.

[Anonymous No.17516073]

>>17516049
Advaita just seems like autistic cryptobuddhism to me so I'm not interested in it anyway.
My reasoning is that even if there are inconsistencies in Buddhism (I don't think so but maybe I'm wrong) it's still a good system and provides a means to reach an absolute truth that cannot be described with mere concepts anyway, as Nagarjuna said. From that point there's no need to even debate.

[Anonymous No.17516100]

>>17516058
Point being that dependent origination is about how phenomena and phenomena cause one another mutually. So categorically we will not arrive at an unconditioned phenomena because phenomena are conditioned, something the other guy consistently ignores. Phenomena however, in appearing and arising and dissolving into another, evidence their emptiness, and penetration of that emptiness is what reveals nirvana. It is in this sense that nirvana and samsara are supports of each other.

[Anonymous No.17516121]

>>17516073
I agree the debate is sort of ridiculous, as the axioms held by each side are totally different. The theist thinks Buddhism is incoherent because Buddhism doesn't affirm that god did it. Every time the theist picks a hole in conceptual discourse he plugs it with god and sighs in relief as if he has done something to resolve a logical problem.

[Anonymous No.17516216]

>>17515997
>That'd only be the case if the causal chain was finite, which it isn't.
If its infinite then pratityasamutpada is uncaused itself (not caused or sustained by anything other than itself) which violates the Buddhist axiom that all things arise on the basis of other things.

Moreover, there is further contradiction because the individual parts of the chain (nescience and the rest) cannot be eternal and uncaused, which violates other Buddhism axioms, which leaves only the answer that the individual links in the chain are temporary and that they arise and cease with the different linkages in the chain being constituted by temporary nesciences etc which replace one another. In this latter scenario though, dependent origination cannot exist because it leads to an infinite regress that never allows dependent origination to exist because dependent origination cannot exist until the parts that constitute it exist, but as these parts arise from dependent origination they cannot exist unless dependent origination already exists.
>>17516007
>It is caused by itself
Then the Buddhist axiom that all things arise on the basis of other things is falsified. Moreover, an eternal uncaused thing can never stop existing or cease which would make liberation impossible.

[Anonymous No.17516245]

>>17516216
>pratityasamutpada is uncaused itself
No it's not
The twelve links are not uncaused, they are caused by each other in a cycle
Also liberation is not dependent on the infinite nature of samsara

[Anonymous No.17516246]

>>17516041
Yes anon it’s true, that you have to use an anime reaction image without any reply to my argument shows that you know I’m right and that you don’t have any good argument left.

Uncaused and independent things with unconditional existence don’t need a reason/cause (same thing) for their existence by definition, to pretend otherwise is to fail at basic logic

[Anonymous No.17516255]

>>17516073
> it's still a good system
No it’s not, Buddhisms contradictions means that it sucks ass

[Anonymous No.17516262]

>>17516255
Nah

[Anonymous No.17516265]

>>17516121
>The theist thinks Buddhism is incoherent because Buddhism doesn't affirm that god did it.
No, Buddhism is incoherent because it contains unresolvable infinite regresses and its axioms violate eachother

[Anonymous No.17516274]

>>17516265
>unresolvable infinite regresses
Not everything has to be resolved
>violate eachother
Nope. Two truths doctrine, simple as

[Anonymous No.17516288]

>>17516246
>causation requires an uncaused thing because I said so
What a retroactively refuted opinion you got there Aquinas

[Anonymous No.17516297]

>>17516265
>unresolvable infinite regresses
>uhhh shit let me just stick god in there whew

[Anonymous No.17516303]

Have you ever considered that you are the nihilist for inventing an entity out of thin air to explain the world around you?

[Anonymous No.17516305]

>>17516245
>The twelve links are not uncaused, they are caused by each other in a cycle
But this leads to an infinite regress that never permits dependent origination to exist or function because dependent origination is supposed to account for the origin of the parts out of which it is made, but it cannot do this unless already constituted by the parts which it is supposed to be accountable for the existence of
>Also liberation is not dependent on the infinite nature of samsara
If ignorance exists in an eternal cycle it can never be ended

[Anonymous No.17516327]

>>17516305
>this leads to an infinite regress
Yeah, I don't see the problem. I don't feel the need to stick god in there but you do you
>it can never be ended
Yeah it can because enlightenment breaks the cycle of conditioned things arising

[Anonymous No.17516355]

>>17516265
>No, Buddhism is incoherent because it contains unresolvable infinite regresses
Joseph Walser already refuted that point.

[Anonymous No.17516359]

>>17516274
>Not everything has to be resolved
If infinite regresses are okay now (they never are but rather they reveal contradiction and falsehood) then Nagarjuna becomes worthless since his main method of trying to refute opposing doctrines is trying to show how they result in an infinite regress. That Buddhism contains this unresolved problem at its core shows that its not the actual explanation of whats going on

[Anonymous No.17516379]

>>17516297
I’m not trying to stick God in there, I don’t know why you keep making this mistake, God doesn’t cause or solve an infinite regress in Advaita Vedanta. Gods exists without causing any infinite regress in Advaita

[Anonymous No.17516382]

>>17516359
>Nagarjuna becomes worthless
kek you've never read Nagarjuna
>That Buddhism contains this unresolved problem
Buddhism is not about resolving autistic metaphysical debates, pseud

[Anonymous No.17516402]

>>17516274
>not everything has to be resolved

>>17516327
>i dont see a problem with infinite regress

HOLY COPE

[Anonymous No.17516416]

>>17515367
What is smarta

[Anonymous No.17516417]

>>17516402
Seethe and dilate, advaitranny

[Anonymous No.17516419]

>>17516327
>Yeah, I don't see the problem
the infinite regress means that there is nothing which permits pratityasamutpada to exist, and as it is incapable of permitting itself to exist it just doesn’t exist and Buddhism is false
> breaks the cycle of conditioned things arising
If the cycle can be broken then it is not eternal and if dependent origination is no longer eternal then it no longer extends forever backwards in time and it has to be caused by something anterior to itself.

[Anonymous No.17516426]

>>17516379
Maybe I am turning schizo from this thread but wasn't the problem raised regarding dependent origination earlier that we *need* an uncaused originator or god otherwise there is an infinite regress?

[Anonymous No.17516433]

>>17516402

[Anonymous No.17516434]

>>17516419
Not true, the twelve links cause each other as said previously. You don't listen, as always.
This extends to your second inaccurate statement

[Anonymous No.17516444]

>>17516100
So all phenomena evidence their own unconditioned nature? I like this dialectic since it can be extended to evince platonism, christianity, kashmir shaivism, kabbalah, where transcendence and immanence are simultaneous.
The unconditioned conditions the conditioned, but I wonder in buddhism’s case how then the conditioned will not be emerged out of creation, or emanation (like a natural extension, procession)

[Anonymous No.17516445]

>>17516419
>phenomena don't really exist
Correct, they only appear.

[Anonymous No.17516453]

>>17515783
As a Hindu I rejected this take on Buddha because it's fucking dumb

[Anonymous No.17516466]

>>17516434
So a link cause another. This implies succession and succession implies e beginning point. Either one link will be uncaused and will condition others or again unresolved infinite regress or ‘its just the way it is bro’.

[Anonymous No.17516471]

>>17516466
No, there is no beginning point
12 -> 1 -> 2 -> 3 -> ... -> 12 -> 1 -> ...

[Anonymous No.17516476]

>>17516355
That doesn't resolve the infinite regress you dummy

[Anonymous No.17516482]

>>17516471
What does
>12 -> 1 -> 2...
means?
That there are already the 12 links causing one of them?

[Anonymous No.17516532]

>>17516216
>>17516305
>>17516359
>>17516419
Could any buddhists address this sincerely?
I feel like good arguments are being made.

[Anonymous No.17516537]

>>17516444
Nice trips. I take some issue with the perennialist narrative if only because so much of it comes down to interpreting a religious experience into the language of one's peers, constrained as that is by whatever theocratic medieval shithole one happens to have made their realization in. In other words, you have to call 'it' god in a lot of cases. Deus sive natura and all that jazz. Buddha, as the scriptures evidence, came about in a period of intense religious debate in India so he was able to ditch that particular prior without too much trouble from any sort of ecclesiastic authorities (though Buddhism as a religion was destined to become a church all the same, just one without an absolute creator god). The god of philosophers is a sort of brood parasite upon the god of priests; which is what I see happening in all these systems where henosis is taught as the highest most esoteric truth. If you are god then god collapses as a concept.

[Anonymous No.17516546]

>>17516417
>t. didn't read it

[Anonymous No.17516550]

>>17516482
It implies that any first link you can pinpoint is caused by its previous link.

[Anonymous No.17516554]

>>17516476
>t. didn't read it

[Anonymous No.17516579]

>>17516532
To elaborate on what I want to know, is Nagarjuna's answer to this basically "it's all emptiness anyway"? I don't understand how this is a satisfying answer.
I'm genuinely interested in Buddhism so please answer in good faith.

[Anonymous No.17516586]

fuck i can't even tell who is who now..

[Anonymous No.17516589]

>>17516382
>Buddhism is not about resolving autistic metaphysical debates
Because Buddhist doesn't resolve the contradictions contained in itself, it refutes itself. Simple as
>>17516416
A sect of Hinduism that traces itself to having been founded or rearranged by Shankara.
>>17516426
The way you phrased it made it sound like I was saying that an infinite regress would be acceptable if God existed, I'm not saying that. I'm saying infinite regresses are never acceptable.
>>17516444
>So all phenomena evidence their own unconditioned nature?
No, he is explicitly denying that by saying that all phenomena are conditioned by default.
>>17516445
Appearances never appear without an existing basis for them though, but the Buddhist doesn't admit any existing basis for the appearance to be in, so that answer is not available to them.
>>17516434
>the twelve links cause each other as said previously.
This leads to an unresolved infinite regress, since they are not individually eternal but depend on pratityasamutpada for their existence, despite pratityasamutpada being dependent on them existing for its own existence, i.e. it's a infinite regress which prevents either pratityasamutpada or its parts from ever existing and because of this we can tell that Buddhism is false.

[Anonymous No.17516601]

>>17516589
>depend on pratityasamutpada for their existence
They are pratityasamutpada you idiot

[Anonymous No.17516615]

>>17516554
Yes, I did, trying to call dependent origination an Indra's net instead of 12-links being neatly in a row doesn't change the underlying fact that there is still an unresolved infinite regress if the constituents of dependent origination depended on dependent origination for their existence while dependent origination simultaneously depends on its parts for its existence, it's an unresolved infinite regress either way.

[Anonymous No.17516622]

>>17516532
Isn't this just a cauterized munchausen trilemma? Do you accept an infinite regress or an uncaused cause? I prefer the endless chain because it is simple insight and requires no creature of rationality to function. We see that things arise and break apart endlessly. Even 'science' continues to find new particles or waves or wave-particles as the building blocks of everything. It never reaches the bottom. Depedent origination was also not taught as an ontology so in my opinion the opponent is reduced to demanding there be a cause for causation. This implies he already believes x can br causally linked to y and so on, and at this point protests that there aren't 13 links instead of 12. And so the Buddhist response is, who cares? Causation seems to appear well enough without god having done it.

[Anonymous No.17516624]

>>17516550
again, it is a successive causation, it ends up in the same unresolved infinite regress of one causing the other but this one which causes being caused by another and so on infinitely. it is absolutely illogical.

[Anonymous No.17516634]

>>17516579
You can read Nagarjuna's MMK in about an hour. The Siderits and Katsura translation includes interlinear notes between the stanzas sourced from four traditional Indian Buddhist commentators. That may help.

[Anonymous No.17516635]

>>17516589
>No, he is explicitly denying that by saying that all phenomena are conditioned by default.
but he just said that '' phenomena in appearing and arising and dissolving into another, evidence their emptiness, and penetration of that emptiness is what reveals nirvana''.

[Anonymous No.17516642]

>>17516601
No that's wrong, pratityasamutapada is not identical with an individual link in the chain like feeling or thirst but it is the entire cycle constituted by all 12. The chain depends on its parts for its existence but the parts depends on the chain for their existence, so it's an unresolved infinite regress

[Anonymous No.17516643]

>>17516589
>The way you phrased it made it sound like I was saying that an infinite regress would be acceptable if God existed, I'm not saying that. I'm saying infinite regresses are never acceptable
You are using god to woo away the regression

[Anonymous No.17516647]

>>17516601
this. wtf is this advaita going on about 'dharmas depending on pratityasamutpada'? he literally has no clue does he...

[Anonymous No.17516656]

>>17516643
>You are using god to woo away the regression
No, I'm saying infinite regresses can never ever be acceptable, they are never true. There is no infinite regress in Advaita Vedanta which Brahman woos away.

[Anonymous No.17516657]

>>17515998
Just saying "it's a fact" doesn't make it so

[Anonymous No.17516660]

>>17516647
Dealing with guenonfag has given me a new appreciation for prasangika tier debate where you just call the opponent a retard for having any views and go back up the mountain with your yaks and prayer flags.

[Anonymous No.17516662]

>>17516615
>Yes, I did
Clearly you didn't, nowhere does he talk about 'Indras net'. Aggregates circle back into each other in a cycle, thereby demolishing the assumption of infinite regress. You can't be this stupid...

[Anonymous No.17516665]

>>17516647
see >>17516642

if you try to escape from it by saying the whole is identical with its parts you violate the law of non-contradiction

[Anonymous No.17516673]

>>17516656
>so there's this GOD who is UNCAUSED
>noooo i'm not stopping the regress I identified in rival systems from applying to mine

[Anonymous No.17516711]

>>17516662
Indra's net was yesterday's topic since Hua-yen Buddhism in China, which influenced Chan/Zen, uses a Hindu metaphor to teach the non-duality of emptiness and appearance. Hindus do not use it this way, or even care about what China thinks it means, since they view it as a weapon wielded by the god to ensnare people

[Anonymous No.17516727]

>>17516622
>I prefer the endless chain because it is simple insight
*an act of pure belief
> and at this point protests that there aren't 13 links instead of 12.
if 13 exists outside the chain its not the 13th link in the chain but transcends the chain entirely
>>17516662
>Aggregates circle back into each other in a cycle, thereby demolishing the assumption of infinite regress
That the things within samsara that are subject to dependent origination circle back around to eachother doesn't change the fact that there is still an unresolved infinite regress because the chain depends upon its parts for its existence at the same time that the parts depend upon the chain for their existence

[Anonymous No.17516738]

>>17516673
>regress I identified in rival systems from applying to mine
There is no infinite regress if God just exists on His lonesome eternally, that's the whole point anon

[Anonymous No.17516742]

>>17516727
>because the chain depends upon its parts for its existence at the same time that the parts depend upon the chain for their existence
do you know what an infinite regress is you retard?

[Anonymous No.17516743]

>>17516727
>*an act of pure belief
You mean like the Vedas having no human author?

[Anonymous No.17516754]

>>17516738
What a coincidence that the regress is arrested by the insertion of a non-regressing entity of which no evidence presents itself outside of mentation.

[Anonymous No.17516791]

>>17516742
Yes
>>17516743
Yes
>>17516754
That's not what coincidence means, it's not a coincidence to point out that an idea is illogical and that another is more logical

[Anonymous No.17516803]

>>17516791
>Yes
Then why did you describe something that isn't?

[Anonymous No.17516809]

>>17513349
Buddhism was Partho-Scythian reinjection of the warrior caste into the Brahmin, whom had mingled too long amidst the interminable Dravidian pantheon

[Anonymous No.17516818]

>guenonfag is gonna walk away from his shambolic performances thinking he won
lmao

[Anonymous No.17516875]

>>17516727
>because the chain depends upon its parts for its existence at the same time that the parts depend upon the chain for their existence
You are describing a circular argument, not an infinite regress argument.

[Anonymous No.17516888]

>>17516875
fucking thank you, at least there's someone with a brain in here (though I doubt he will be convinced)

[Anonymous No.17516897]

>>17516416
smartass*

[Anonymous No.17516912]

>>17516897
kek

[Anonymous No.17516916]

>>17516622
But as the other guy says, how do the links come into existence if there is no transcendent "thirteenth link"?
>who cares
Doesn't it matter to have a coherent system?
>>17516634
I'll do that but I was hoping someone would address the other anon's actual arguments against dependent origination.

[Anonymous No.17516933]

>>17515367
>I don't know who this guenonfag is, but I applaud him for letting me succeed!
>also I have never lied at all
did you forget to change file name or is it part of the act?

[Anonymous No.17516945]

>>17516803
It is an infinite regress for a chain to depend upon its parts for its existence while at the same time that the parts of the chain depend upon the chain existing as an intact aggregated whole for their existence. This is the exact infinite regress that results from the relation of pratityasamutapada to its constituent parts.
>>17516809
False, Buddha was a non-Aryan (likely some type of Asiatic), Him being Scythian is false and a massive cope. The region he comes from was from where the mountains meet the flatlands in eastern India. The Scythians were a huge distance away separated by huge deserts and mountain ranges, they didn't just teleport to the foothills of eastern India. The clan Buddha came from worshipped trees and practiced incest (probably the reason he came up with such retarded metaphysics that included an unresolved infinite regress was that his brain was deformed from being the product of incest)

>The Shakyas were an eastern sub-Himalayan ethnic group on the periphery, both geographically and culturally, of the eastern Indian subcontinent in the 5th century BCE.[13][14] Bronkhorst calls this eastern culture Greater Magadha and notes that "Buddhism and Jainism arose in a culture which was recognized as being non-Vedic".[15] According to Levman, the Shakyas were considered outside of the Āryāvarta and of ‘mixed origin’ (saṃkīrṇa-yonayaḥ, possibly part Aryan and part indigenous). The laws of Manu treats them as being non Aryan. As noted by Levman, "The Baudhāyana-dharmaśāstra (1.1.2.13–4) lists all the tribes of Magadha as being outside the pale of the Āryāvarta; and just visiting them required a purificatory sacrifice as expiation" (In Manu 10.11, 22).[13] This is confirmed by the Ambaṭṭha Sutta, where the Sakyans are said to be "rough-spoken", "of menial origin" and criticised because "they do not honour, respect, esteem, revere or pay homage to Brahmans."[16] Some of the non-Vedic practices of this tribe included incest (marrying their sisters), the worship of trees, tree spirits and nāgas.[17]
>According to Levman "while the Sakyans’ rough speech and Munda ancestors do not prove that they spoke a non-Indo-Aryan language, there is a lot of other evidence suggesting that they were indeed a separate ethnic (and probably linguistic) group."[18]

[Anonymous No.17516959]

>>17516916
God is not a coherent answer because Buddhist epistemology treats god like a chair or a pot or anything else. If you absolutely have to have increasingly fleshed out arguments for why it is the case that appearances are empty of a self-nature and this is how they are able to cause one another interdependently you can follow up Nagarjuna with Aryadeva and Chandrakirti and then pick your favorite Tibetan, they love this stuff.

[Anonymous No.17516960]

>>17516945
>they do not honour, respect, esteem, revere or pay homage to Brahmins
oh horror of horrors!

[Anonymous No.17516969]

>>17516945
>he doesn't practice sacred incest like the gods
ngmi

[Anonymous No.17516977]

>>17516875
It leads to an infinite regress when accounting for how those things exist, because for the parts to exist the chain must exist, but for the chain to exist the parts must exist, but for the parts to exist the chain must exist, and so on ad infinitum. There is never anything which permits them to exist.

[Anonymous No.17516984]

>>17516959
>this non buddhist coherence does not fit in buddhist incoherences
yes we know. you always end up with the same unresolved problems giving no answers just hoping for us to leave, that is why they always say: just read this. never an explanation, and people dare to say that they are attracted to buddhism because it is intuitive, logical and pertinent.

[Anonymous No.17516992]

>>17516959
>God is not a coherent answer because Buddhist epistemology treats god like a chair or a pot or anything else.
God is not a chair or a pot though, so Buddhist epistemology is wrong

[Anonymous No.17517010]

>>17516532
They did, it was right here: >>17515779

There is absolutely no reason to assume that we don't live in a universe with an infinite historical past that doesn't just come down to "this book says so". That's literally the argument Aquinas and Shankara make (although Shankara's argument is shaky as he happily picks and chooses which parts of the Vedas apply to his thought and which don't). Anon is getting filtered by the classic mistake of trying to apply a system onto another system that rejects some basic components of the first, and not getting why it doesn't work.

And no, by the way, an infinite historical progression is not an infinite regress. An infinite regress is creating infinite steps in between two things. But with an infinite historical past, there are a completely finite number of steps before two things, there's just no "first thing" (Aristotle actually goes over this in his argument for an uncreated polytheistic universe). This ALSO, as was pointed out here >>17516662, allows for cycles to continue wherein the sheer fact that an event occurs ensures future occurrences.

[Anonymous No.17517017]

>>17516977
That is not an infinite regress, though, it's just an infinite historical past.

[Anonymous No.17517038]

>>17516977
>because for the parts to exist the chain must exist, but for the chain to exist the parts must exist, but for the parts to exist the chain must exist, and so on ad infinitum.
This is known as a circular argument. Not a regression to infinity argument. Its ok to be wrong anon, you dont need to save face.

[Anonymous No.17517048]

>>17516984
>i win because you got tired of telling me cosmic indo-thomism relies on made-up premises

[Anonymous No.17517053]

>>17516992
Why not? What makes god any less of a concept? I guess since we actually have pots and chairs they might have more reality as appearances than he does. Is that what you are saying?

[Anonymous No.17517054]

>>17516959
Couldn't you just answer the questions without pointing me to various authors? I'm not even done with Theravada literature yet.
I find Mahayana metaphysics elegant from what I've read but I'd like to at least get answers to these questions before diving deeper into it.
>>17517010
>There is absolutely no reason to assume that we don't live in a universe with an infinite historical past
Is there any reason to assume we don't live in an universe with a finite historical past?
Both possibilities require a leap of faith, but in the latter case, I think the other guy is making a convincing argument when he says that an unconditioned thing doesn't need a cause to arise, and that therefore an unconditioned first mover would make sense to set dependent origination in motion.

[Anonymous No.17517091]

>>17517054
>Is there any reason to assume we don't live in an universe with a finite historical past?
Yeah, it's completely absurd. There's a reason that Aquinas said that it's completely absurd and that you just have to take it on faith because the Torah said so. Your options are:
>Infinite chain of creators
In which case, you're really just saying that some section of the universe was altered, so it's not actually created at all, and because the chain is infinite, there is no finite historical past, OR,
>Taking some arbitrary section of the universe that is eternal and uncreated and saying that that part rearranged everything else, which is separate for no reason
Which is also just an argument for an eternal uncreated universe as the eternal uncreated part is eteranl and uncreated, OR,
>One day everything just poofed into existence for no reason at all
At which point we're just dipping into literal actual absurdism and there's zero point in even speaking because the fact that anything ever has ever worked at all up until this point is literally just pure luck.

Are you really trying to argue that you're cleverer than Aristotle, anon?

[Anonymous No.17517119]

>>17517054
I don't have the sutta pitaka forward and backward in my mind but iirc the explanation Theravadins would use from the canon for Ishvara-Brahma (creator God) is that he himself is deluded by his precedence; he thinks he is the creator because he observed stuff arise after him. The arguments against 'great lord' I am more familiar with are from Mahayana perspective. Neither of these perspectives are atheist per se but they do strip gods of immortality or being uncaused.

[Anonymous No.17517164]

>>17517091
What about what I said about an unconditioned first cause? Why couldn't there be a first cause that is not reliant on something else to exist?
The thing is that our universe is conditioned, so it cannot bring itself into existence.
>>17517119
What are the Mahayana arguments?

[Anonymous No.17517185]

>>17517017
>That is not an infinite regress, though, it's just an infinite historical past.
The infinite historical past in which infinite dependent origination hypothetically takes place is different than the question of what permits both the entire chain and the individual parts of dependent origination to exist, which is where the infinite regress comes in since they are unable to account for themselves existing. Simply saying it goes back forever does not solve the issue since time does not cause or permit things to exist.
>>17517038
see above

[Anonymous No.17517197]

>>17517164
>Why couldn't there be a first cause that is not reliant on something else to exist?
Because then you're doing one of the three things in >>17517091 wherein you're either postulating that we live in a historically infinite uncreated universe, or, are being absurd.

There are, again, certain formulations that don't necessarily disagree with the Buddhist conception of dependent origination (Aristotle's Prime Movers, for example), but again, that's still arguing in favor of a historically infinite uncreated past.

[Anonymous No.17517208]

>>17517185
>Simply saying it goes back forever does not solve the issue since time does not cause or permit things to exist.
Sure it does. The fact that you don't get what an Infinite Regress is doesn't change that. Each thing is caused by some prior thing. There's a finite number of steps between each thing. There you go, problem solved.

[Anonymous No.17517210]

>>17517197
Couldn't we live in a historically finite universe that came into existence through the action of an uncreated first cause?

[Anonymous No.17517219]

>>17517210
No, because that forces us to choose one of the three options in >>17517091. If you choose the first two, it's an uncreated historically infinite universe, and if we choose the third one, then there's no point in discussing anything ever.

[Anonymous No.17517232]

>>17517219
Ok, I'll think about this. Thanks for taking the time to answer.

[Anonymous No.17517238]

>>17517054
>Couldn't you just answer the questions without pointing me to various authors?
He can’t because in the whole history of Buddhist philosophy there is no Buddhist thinker who ever resolves this dilemma, they just accept dependent origination on faith cuz Buddha said so and leave it at that
>>17517053
>Why not?
Well for example, God is formless, unconditioned, without beginning, partless, and physical objects like chairs are the opposite of those things
>>17517091
>Taking some arbitrary section of the universe that is eternal and uncreated and saying that that part rearranged everything else, which is separate for no reason
That’s false though because God is transcendent to the universe so saying that the universe is predicated on God is not the same as saying one part of the universe rearranges the other, you are getting basic facts wrong

[Anonymous No.17517253]

>>17517208
>Each thing is caused by some prior thing
That’s impossible though when it relies on that very thing for its own existence, meaning that it is incapable of causing that on which it relies for its own existence, thats what the infinite regress in question is about

[Anonymous No.17517267]

>>17517238
But this is just the second choice in >>17517091. You're just taking an arbitrary section of the universe and saying it's separate for no reason.

But in admitting that some section of the universe is eternal and uncreated, and in admitting that you're just arbitrarily saying that some random patch of the universe is special for no reason, you're just admitting to an eternal uncreated universe. By your logic, as there is no reason that this patch of the universe is chosen as opposed to some other, we could say my chair, or me, or my computer, or my house is transcendent and uncreated.

[Anonymous No.17517270]

>>17517253
>That’s impossible though when it relies on that very thing for its own existence
Not really. It just relies on some prior thing.

[Anonymous No.17517277]

>>17517232
His second option in that post is a strawman because it falsely equates making God eternal and uncaused with making a portion of the universe (that is a contingent, changing and conditioned thing, into something that uncaused). So to say God is uncaused is fundamentally different than saying a portion of the universe is, because the former does not contain all the problems and contradictions inherent in the latter.

[Anonymous No.17517282]

>>17517164
>What are the Mahayana arguments?
In short, god doesn't survive analysis. For instance: What cause did he have to create? If we predicate this absolute uncaused pure being with tasks, now we need something to have led us from there not being a world to there being a world as a consequence of that being. If it was him who created, why? There is a highly strict definition of existence being used, such that a thing must have a permanent unique substance. And if this were so, one thing could not cause other things or even appear to. A seed would always be a seed and you would never get sprouts. That will take us back to chairs and pots and dependent origination and emptiness and all the other standard arguments. As I said (in one of these threads today at least), Buddhism doesn't really "care" about God; he may get a few verses in a sutra or a page in a commentary but he is just another concept and gets treated like the rest of the concepts: causally potent, expedient for our use, but not ultimate.

[Anonymous No.17517285]

>>17517277
If God can interact with the universe, he is inherently conditioned, anon.

[Anonymous No.17517316]

>>17517285
just like if all things are empty emptiness is conditioned?

[Anonymous No.17517318]

>>17517285
No you don't understand, God has nothing to do with the system that he created because Buddhism is full of inconsistencies and we see examples all the time of entities influencing things without influencing them.

[Anonymous No.17517325]

>>17517267
>You're just taking an arbitrary section of the universe and saying it's separate for no reason.
No I’m not, God is transcendent to the universe and is immutable while the universe is delimited by form and change that makes it mutable.
> But in admitting that some section of the universe is eternal and uncreated,
I’m not admitting that, God is not a section of the universe but the universe is a manifestation of God’s power who is beyond it.
>in admitting that you're just arbitrarily saying that some random patch of the universe is special for no reason,
No I’m not, see above
>you're just admitting to an eternal uncreated universe.
No I’m not, the universe changes and things that change are not eternal
>By your logic, as there is no reason that this patch of the universe is chosen as opposed to some other,
Again, more strawmanning, I’m not choosing any part of the universe but something outside it. We cannot choose any arbitrary section of the universe as eternal because the universe changes and eternal things dont change by default

[Anonymous No.17517356]

>>17517285
this is how creation surpasses emanationism or the dualism of buddhism, a creator interacting with what he creates does not depend on his creation for his existence, power.

[Anonymous No.17517358]

>>17517325
Do you notice how nobody else writes like that? It's because it's obnoxious to read on top of being an eyesore. Imagine quoting and responding to individual sentences while having a real life conservation with somebody. It would be weird as fuck, wouldn't it? Stop being weird.

[Anonymous No.17517451]

>>17517270
>Not really. It just relies on some prior thing
False, because that prior thing arises from dependent origination, which depends on that thing viz the 12 links, which depend upon dependent origination existing as a link of 12 chains and so on ad infintium, extending the timeline back infinitely doesn’t magically account for what permits this regress to exist
>>17517282
>>What cause did he have to create?
Advaita says it is God’s eternal uncaused nature to wield his power of maya or ‘creation’. An eternal uncaused nature does not need another additional justification but is self-sufficient unto itself as a reason
>If we predicate this absolute uncaused pure being with tasks, now we need something to have led us from there not being a world to there being a world as a consequence of that being.
Only if you accept that this had a beginning instead of always being the case, which Advaita and some other theologies completely reject
>There is a highly strict definition of existence being used, such that a thing must have a permanent unique substance.
God is formless, and a formless substance is an oxymoron, so that’s a false classification of existence which doesn’t apply to the transcendental and unconditioned existence of God who is formless
>And if this were so, one thing could not cause other things or even appear to.
And why is that?
>A seed would always be a seed and you would never get sprouts
But seeds don’t posses intelligence or powers, they grow according to the ‘blueprints’ directing growth in their cells and the nutrients they receive, but God possesses powers that He wields, he is not a seed, so that is an inappropriate anology
>>17517285
Advaita denies that Brahman interacts with any separate universe, but I don’t even have to make recourse to that argument because you are using the word ‘interaction’ wrong and your arguments falls apart for that very reason. The definition of an interaction is a reciprocal action or influence. If only God affects the universe and the universe does not affect God back its not an interaction because it is not reciprocal, thus God remains unconditioned.

[Anonymous No.17517461]

>>17517358
>Imagine quoting and responding to individual sentences while having a real life conservation with somebody.
When posters such as him make so many errors in a row, it helps to clarify and correct them one by one, and that format makes it easy to see how that is being done

[Anonymous No.17517465]

>>17517282
I think you're being too big brained for me here, I understand nothing to your argument. Why do we need to know why god created? This doesn't seem relevant to metaphysical inquiry. I don't understand why god doesn't survive analysis.
>>17517285
Then how are people able to realize Nirvana?

[Anonymous No.17517479]

>>17517318
what?

[Anonymous No.17517497]

>>17517318
>we see examples all the time of entities influencing things without interacting with them (all interactions are reciprocal or they are not interactions)
Yes, correct. Like the Sun warming the earth but without being affected back by the earth in an interaction. Or the bow releasing the arrow that strikes the deer but without the deer having a reciprocal effect back upon and thus an interaction with that bow.

[Anonymous No.17517506]

>>17517479
See his long form version of this here
>>17517325

[Anonymous No.17517508]

>>17517497
The deer has no relevant interaction with the bow

[Anonymous No.17517518]

>>17517461
I think the style is a crutch for stupid people because any halfway competent writer will be able to address multiple points in a post, and the better writer you are the more natural it appears. This is helpful because it encourages people to actually read what you have to say. If a writer can't do it for whatever reason then there must be something wrong with them. They're not competent.

[Anonymous No.17517540]

>>17517238
>>He can’t because in the whole history of Buddhist philosophy there is no Buddhist thinker who ever resolves this dilemma, they just accept dependent origination on faith cuz Buddha said so and leave it at that
They didnt resolve anything because there's no dilemma in the first place, beyond whatever clusterfuck there is in your pea sized brain.

[Anonymous No.17517564]

>>17517451
Really long way of saying 'God did it,' from Aquinas-on-Ganges. Too bad we invented God as a concept, so he by definition couldn't have invented us. You've become your own grandfather
>>17517465
If god isn't creating then he is even more of an ordinary concept like a pot or a chair. God being some catatonic husk is even more of a Buddhist take than a theistic take
>>17517497
A portion of the sun's light gets absorbed by the earth and thus it does not keep going to hit something else, and moreover the earth as a celestial body influences all the other bodies in their orbits. The hunter who looses the arrow sees his arrow stopped by the felled deer and does not knock another arrow in his bow. They are all interdependent.

[Anonymous No.17517572]

>>17517564
I didn't say god isn't creating, I'm asking why we would need to know why he creates.
Couldn't a fully transcendental god just create this conditioned universe?

[Anonymous No.17517573]

>>17516945
I love how poos keep quoting their pooey texts who shit on non-poos

[Anonymous No.17517579]

>>17517572
I mean, he could create a little universe out of thin air like a magician but then what do we know about magicians?

[Anonymous No.17517592]

>>17517573
It's great stuff. "Buddhism is wrong because I am vicariously racist on the behalf of chariot driving nomads against people living in the highlands who were too remote to be subjugated."

[Anonymous No.17517595]

>>17517579
What about my other question? Someone said that a god who could interact with the universe is inherently conditioned, but nirvana is unconditioned, yet it can be realized by the conditioned (us). How is the conditioned capable of breaking into the unconditioned? How can there be such interpenetration without going against the logic of dependent origination?

[Anonymous No.17517639]

>>17517595
The two-word answer is "religious experience." But other than that, understanding the dependent origination of phenomena leads to the realization of emptiness of their own self-nature(s). Being empty they are able to appear and appear to have causal efficacy on one another. Therefore the rounds of samsara are grounded in nirvana, which itself is revealed in samsara.

[Anonymous No.17517654]

>>17517639
But how does this make sense metaphysically? How can a conditioned phenomenon break into the unconditioned?
Are you saying that neither are conditioned or unconditioned and that these are just provisional terms that boil down to emptiness in the end? Isn't this kind of a copout since you can just say "it's emptiness" when faced with a contradiction? Not trying to be inflammatory or to come off as an asshole, I want to understand.
If samsara and nirvana are the same thing, what's the point of the noble eightfold path?

[Anonymous No.17517790]

>>17516532
you can't find a moment where there is no ignorance [like a pre-samsara thing], then ignorance [ie samsara], then no ignorance again [nirvana]
This is why it is said that ''there is no beginning of samsara to be found''
Basically the retard here
>>17516216
>>17516305
>>17516359
>>17516419
wants to find the condition for ignorance or ''volitional processes'' [ignorance is the condition of ''volitional processes''] and there isn't one so he goes into an autistic spamming mode.

There isn't a sequence consisting of ''volitional processes'' not tainted by ignorance [so something like god of the NPCs], then of ignorance popping up magically, with all the ''volitional processes'' tainted by it, and feelings and birth and suffering, then some practice of the path leading to again a moment with no ''volitional processes'' , no ignorance, no feelings and so on [ie nirvana]

Even if there was such a pre-samsara thing, it would be some meaningless primordial soup, devoid of ''volitional processes'', devoid of feeling, of perception, of all the links in the dependant origination.

And this makes >>17516216
>>17516305
>>17516359
>>17516419
seethe so much it becomes watching a cartoon.

[Anonymous No.17517820]

>>17517654
Well I can just spit out arguments without having attained to the direct realization of them. I don't claim to be enlightened or whatever. Nagarjuna in fact directly addresses the four noble truths in the context of emptiness, but you might already be able to guess how—the buddhadharma is impossible without emptiness. I will say that 'it's all the same thing' is overly reductionist, and that Madhyamikas would reject absolute sameness and absolute difference as extreme views. It comes back to the appearance/emptiness relationship.

[Anonymous No.17517835]

As a reminder this is dependent origination

>“This being so that is, beginning with the arising of this that arises, thus: because of ignorance there are volitional processes, because of volitional processes: consciousness, because of consciousness: mind and body, because of mind and body: the six sense-spheres, because of the six sense-spheres: contact, because of contact: feeling, because of feeling: craving, because of craving: attachment, because of attachment: continuation, because of continuation: birth, because of birth: old age, death, grief, lamentation, pain, sorrow, and despair all arise, and so there is an origination of this whole great mass of suffering.

[Anonymous No.17517854]

If you really want a cause for ''ignorance'' you that, which is just ''there is no practice of the path''


Numbered Discourses 10

7. Pairs
61. Ignorance

“Mendicants, it is said that no first point of ignorance is evident, before which there was no ignorance, and afterwards it came to be. And yet it is evident that there is a specific condition for ignorance.

I say that ignorance is fueled by something, it’s not unfueled. And what is the fuel for ignorance? You should say: ‘The five hindrances.’ I say that the five hindrances are fueled by something, they’re not unfueled. And what is the fuel for the five hindrances? You should say: ‘The three kinds of misconduct.’ I say that the three kinds of misconduct are fueled by something, they’re not unfueled. And what is the fuel for the three kinds of misconduct? You should say: ‘Lack of sense restraint.’ I say that lack of sense restraint is fueled by something, it’s not unfueled. And what is the fuel for lack of sense restraint? You should say: ‘Lack of mindfulness and situational awareness.’ I say that lack of mindfulness and situational awareness is fueled by something, it’s not unfueled. And what is the fuel for lack of mindfulness and situational awareness? You should say: ‘Improper attention.’ I say that improper attention is fueled by something, it’s not unfueled. And what is the fuel for improper attention? You should say: ‘Lack of faith.’ I say that lack of faith is fueled by something, it’s not unfueled. And what is the fuel for lack of faith? You should say: ‘Not listening to the true teaching.’ I say that not listening to the true teaching is fueled by something, it’s not unfueled. And what is the fuel for not listening to the true teaching? You should say: ‘Not associating with good people.’

In this way, when the factor of not associating with good people is fulfilled, it fulfills the factor of not listening to the true teaching. When the factor of not listening to the true teaching is fulfilled, it fulfills the factor of lack of faith … improper attention … lack of mindfulness and situational awareness … lack of sense restraint … the three kinds of misconduct … the five hindrances. When the five hindrances are fulfilled, they fulfill ignorance. That’s the fuel for ignorance, and that’s how it’s fulfilled.

[Anonymous No.17517866]

It’s like when the rain pours down on a mountain top, and the water flows downhill to fill the hollows, crevices, and creeks. As they become full, they fill up the pools. The pools fill up the lakes, the lakes fill up the streams, and the streams fill up the rivers. And as the rivers become full, they fill up the ocean. That’s the fuel for the ocean, and that’s how it’s filled up.

In the same way, when the factor of not associating with good people is fulfilled, it fulfills the factor of not listening to the true teaching. When the factor of not listening to the true teaching is fulfilled, it fulfills the factor of lack of faith … improper attention … lack of mindfulness and situational awareness … lack of sense restraint …the three kinds of misconduct … the five hindrances. When the five hindrances are fulfilled, they fulfill ignorance. That’s the fuel for ignorance, and that’s how it’s fulfilled.

I say that knowledge and freedom are fueled by something, they’re not unfueled. And what is the fuel for knowledge and freedom? You should say: ‘The seven awakening factors.’ I say that the seven awakening factors are fueled by something, they’re not unfueled. And what is the fuel for the seven awakening factors? You should say: ‘The four kinds of mindfulness meditation.’ I say that the four kinds of mindfulness meditation are fueled by something, they’re not unfueled. And what is the fuel for the four kinds of mindfulness meditation? You should say: ‘The three kinds of good conduct.’ I say that the three kinds of good conduct are fueled by something, they’re not unfueled. And what is the fuel for the three kinds of good conduct? You should say: ‘Sense restraint.’ I say that sense restraint is fueled by something, it’s not unfueled. And what is the fuel for sense restraint? You should say: ‘Mindfulness and situational awareness.’ I say that mindfulness and situational awareness is fueled by something, it’s not unfueled. And what is the fuel for mindfulness and situational awareness? You should say: ‘Proper attention.’ I say that proper attention is fueled by something, it’s not unfueled. And what is the fuel for proper attention? You should say: ‘Faith.’ I say that faith is fueled by something, it’s not unfueled. And what is the fuel for faith? You should say: ‘Listening to the true teaching.’ I say that listening to the true teaching is fueled by something, it’s not unfueled. And what is the fuel for listening to the true teaching? You should say: ‘Associating with good people.’

[Anonymous No.17517870]

In this way, when the factor of associating with good people is fulfilled, it fulfills the factor of listening to the true teaching. When the factor of listening to the true teaching is fulfilled, it fulfills the factor of faith … proper attention … mindfulness and situational awareness … sense restraint …the three kinds of good conduct … the four kinds of mindfulness meditation … the seven awakening factors. When the seven awakening factors are fulfilled, they fulfill knowledge and freedom. That’s the fuel for knowledge and freedom, and that’s how it’s fulfilled.

It’s like when it rains heavily on a mountain top, and the water flows downhill to fill the hollows, crevices, and creeks. As they become full, they fill up the pools. The pools fill up the lakes, the lakes fill up the streams, and the streams fill up the rivers. And as the rivers become full, they fill up the ocean. That’s the fuel for the ocean, and that’s how it’s filled up.

In the same way, when the factor of associating with good people is fulfilled, it fulfills the factor of listening to the true teaching. When the factor of listening to the true teaching is fulfilled, it fulfills the factor of faith … proper attention … mindfulness and situational awareness … sense restraint …the three kinds of good conduct … the four kinds of mindfulness meditation … the seven awakening factors. When the seven awakening factors are fulfilled, they fulfill knowledge and freedom. That’s the fuel for knowledge and freedom, and that’s how it’s fulfilled.”


https://suttacentral.net/an10.61/en/sujato

[Anonymous No.17517880]

>>17517820
I understand why the dharma is impossble without emptiness, because things cannot exist on their own without relation to anything
But I don't get why samsara is nirvana. In fact I don't even understand the "form is emptiness, emptiness is form" thing. If samsara is nirvana, does it mean there is no such thing as the unconditioned?

[Anonymous No.17517947]

>>17517880
They literally call this non-conceptual wisdom, or the perfection of wisdom, prajñaparamita in Mahayana. So it's not expected you get it just by reading. Sort of implied that you can't. I know that's a bit disappointing of answer depending on what you may think Buddhism is or is not, but it is first and foremost a religion.

[Anonymous No.17517977]

>>17517947
Ok, thank you anon

[Anonymous No.17518017]

>makes buddhists seethe

[Anonymous No.17518019]

>>17518017
The Buddha didn't care about castes.

[Anonymous No.17518027]

>>17518019
Really? I was always led to believe he was firmly against it

[Anonymous No.17518042]

>>17518027
He didn't care. He abolished them within his own monastic order but that's it. He wasn't an anti-caste activist or anything.

[Anonymous No.17518054]

>>17518042
Oh good to know anon, thank you

[Anonymous No.17518111]

>>17517508
Exactly, the example shows that A can influence B without an interaction between A and B occurring. Just as God can influence the universe without there being any interaction (which is necessarily mutual) between the two.
>>17517540
>They didnt resolve anything because there's no dilemma in the first place
Except for the serious dilemma in Buddhism of the unresolved infinite regress involving what permits the chain of dependent origination and its components to exist
>>17517564
>Too bad we invented God as a concept
False, people recognized God as something that exists. It doesn't matter anyway though because this is not an argument that refutes anything.
>A portion of the sun's light gets absorbed by the earth and thus it does not keep going to hit something else
This does not count as a reciprocal interaction with the sun, so this example completely fails to show that all influence is reciprocal
> moreover the earth as a celestial body influences all the other bodies in their orbits.
The earth being a celestial body which revolves around the sun in its orbit does not impart any sort of affect upon the sun, to this also fails to show that all influence is reciprocal. To use another example as well, a distant star in another solar system has trace amounts of its light pass into our solar system, which is detected by our telescopes. That distant star's light influences our telescopes on earth by showing up as detectable light in our telescopes, but that telescope being influenced has no affect or influence upon that distant star. So once again it shows that not all relations are reciprocal.
>The hunter who looses the arrow sees his arrow stopped by the felled deer and does not knock another arrow in his bow. They are all interdependent.
That is not the deer exerting an impact upon the bow but the wielder of the bow choosing to use it in another way, the bow itself is not changed or affected by anything caused by the deer's body but only by its wielder who is not the deer. In any case the above examples show that not all relations are automatically reciprocal, and if there is a single exception then it's no longer valid as a universal rule.
>>17517592
No, Buddhism is wrong because of the unresolved infinite regress in it, among other reasons like their theory of mind being garbage.
>>17517790
You never resolved the infinite regress in your post, saying it extends back infinitely does not solve anything because time is not something which permits or causes other things to exist
>>17517835
>>17517854
>>17517866
>>17517870
Dependent origination was refuted by Shankara, it's illogical nonsense that involves an unresolved infinite regress. Only someone who lacks critical thinking skills could take it seriously. Thankfully, better and more intellect minds than Buddha came along like Shankara and exposed it as the sophistic nonsense that it is.

[Anonymous No.17518138]

>>17518019
Buddhists in Sri Lanka actually follow their own caste system

>The “caste” talk is getting embarrassing. Caste is never spoken about in the open in Sri Lanka but is always present. There is no caste census or reservation. It is never mentioned in newspapers except in the marriage classifieds. But it most certainly determines who we marry, who we vote for and in which Buddhist temple we worship. In this essay I would like to highlight an alternate glimpse of hierarchy, caste and exclusion in Sri Lankan Buddhism.
>Old Sinhala language religious documents such as the Pujavaliya, the Saddharmaratnavaliya, the Kadayimpoth, and the Niti Nighanduwa refer to an elaborately ordered caste hierarchy in Buddhist Sri Lanka. In the 2nd century BC, the famed Sinhala king Dutugemenu had a son by the name of Saliya. Saliya was exiled because he had married the outcaste girl Asokamala. In the 11th century AD, King Vijaybahu denied access to the lower Sinhala castes to venerate Buddha’s foot print at the summit of Sri Pada in central Sri Lanka. The lower castes were confined to a terrace much further down. King Nissanka Malla in the 12 century felt threatened by the dominant Sinhala caste, the Govigama. He warned them in stone inscriptions to never aspire to high office. Much later, the Siam Nikaya, the Buddhist Sangha in Sri Lanka, denied membership to those who were not of the Govigama caste. This forced the Karava, the Salagama and Durava castes to seek ordination in Myanmar. Many others converted to Christianity in protest.
>The Practical Sinhala Dictionary published as late as 1983 by the Government of Sri Lanka referred to the caste divisions in Sinhala society where the Govi were declared high caste and others denied that characterization

https://www.colombotelegraph.com/index.php/caste-and-exclusion-in-sinhala-buddhism/

[Anonymous No.17518142]

>>17518138
Based

[Anonymous No.17518165]

>>17518111
No fact can be separated from the surrounding system that makes it possible, and no amount of gerrymandering will get god out of the district he is actually in, that of created concepts.

[Anonymous No.17518188]

>>17518138
Yeah but the point is this isn't an original teaching or practice of the sangha

[Anonymous No.17518206]

>>17518138
Basically proof that Buddhism doesn't really care about caste
>>17518142
Or to the particular audience that guenonfag is failing to impress, evidence that Buddhism is based

[Anonymous No.17518216]

>>17518206
>Or to the particular audience that guenonfag is failing to impress, evidence that Buddhism is based
Most certainly

[Anonymous No.17518235]

>>17518142
What is this pic supposed to imply?

[Anonymous No.17518462]

>>17518165
cope more atheist buddhishit, your false dogmas were proven to be utterly retarded in this thread repeatedly.

[Anonymous No.17518471]

>>17518235
That buddhism is an aryan religion?

[Anonymous No.17518595]

>>17517316
Emptiness is Empty, yes.

[Anonymous No.17518598]

>>17518462
Seethe guenontranny

[Anonymous No.17518609]

>>17517508
Right, but it does have an interaction with the arrow, which has an interaction with the bow. The bow is changed by having fired the arrow, just as the sun has changed by warming something. Indeed, the sun is a really good example of this, as its very existence is a constant state of change. If it were to stop changing, it would stop emitting light and warmth.

You can't have one-way interaction.

[Anonymous No.17518694]

>>17518165
>No fact can be separated from the surrounding system that makes it possible
The fact of God’s power and its manifestation depend on God, but God is unconditioned by his wielding of his own power. God is not made possible by other things, but God’s existence is independent and self-established
>and no amount of gerrymandering will get god out of the district he is actually in, that of created concepts.
God is not contained in any district but is all-pervasive or boundless. God is not created either but is uncreated by default.

Anyways, the example of the light from the star in another solar system influencing our telescopes without us or our telescopes influencing that star in return already proves that not all relation is reciprocal so I don't even know why you are still trying to dispute this.

[Anonymous No.17518726]

>>17518694
But the seeing of the star by the telescope does affect the star. Ignoring what anon >>17518609 said about the fact that the star is always changing (which by your definition God can't be), it's just a simple fact that observing the star changes it. Observation is inherently reciprocal.

[Anonymous No.17518760]

>>17518462

[Anonymous No.17518762]

>>17518609
>Right, but it does have an interaction with the arrow, which has an interaction with the bow
The deer exerts no causal effect upon the bow
> just as the sun has changed by warming something.
No it’s not, whether the light emitted from the sun hits a planet or continues on indefinitely that induces no change in the sun or has any other affect upon it, this it’s a one-sides relation and isnt reciprocal. Also, the example of the light from a distant star light years away influencing our telescopes without us or the telescope influencing that star in return shows that not all relations are reciprocal. You chose to ignore that example and only tried to dispute the others because it refutes your claim. But all we need is one example to show that your claim is not universally true, which the example of the far away star and telescope proves.
> You can't have one-way interaction
Are you even paying attention to the words you are using anon? All interactions are two way by default, influence is not always automatically an interaction because influence can be non-reciprocal as the example of the star and telescope demonstrates.

[Anonymous No.17518770]

>>17518694
>God is not contained in any district but is all-pervasive or boundless. God is not created either but is uncreated by default.
You're creating him right now lol

[Anonymous No.17518774]

>>17518726
>But the seeing of the star by the telescope does affect the star
How? How does us detecting the light of a star that hundreds of light-years away affect in any way that star? It doesn’t, to affect or influence something you have to induce a change in it, but by detecting its light from hundreds of light-years away we induce no change in that far away star

[Anonymous No.17518781]

>>17518770
>You're creating him right now lol
No, I’m acknowledging an uncreated and ever-present reality

[Anonymous No.17518790]

>>17518781
Tfw someone tries to impose their god on you

[Anonymous No.17518808]

>>17518762
>The deer exerts no causal effect upon the bow
Correct. The deer exerts a causal effect upon the arrow, which exerted a causal effect upon the bow.

>All interactions are two way by default
Correct, which is why I'm kind of baffled that you're seriously trying to argue that one-way effects can happen. You're trolling here, right? You can't seriously believe that an arrow can be shot from a bow and not have some kind of effect on the bow.

>>17518774
In simple terms, it goes from unseen to seen. That's an effect upon it. If you want to get giga-materialist about it, "the sun" is just an enormous fusion reaction emitting heat and photons. You cannot separate the two, it's literally a giant ball of heat and photons (and hydrogen and dense elements, but that's semantics). The photons that hit your eyes ARE parts of the sun.
>but you're just deconstructing the sun into its base components!
Wowee zowee, and when we do that, we see that the sun and stars are composite, Dependently Originated, Empty! Huh! It's almost like you can't have a one-way interaction because everything affects both parties! It's almost like subject-object duality is a linguistic construct we use to make things like "going to the store" easier to say!

[Anonymous No.17518814]

>>17516589
So smarta = advaita vedanta?

[Anonymous No.17518818]

>>17518216
Is Zen really Buddhism?

[Anonymous No.17518823]

>>17518808
>It's almost like subject-object duality is a linguistic construct we use to make things like "going to the store" easier to say!
Brahman said he was going to the store to get some Atman. He'll come back to my Jiva won't he?

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17518829]

Hey guenon-anon, how do you feel about tantric Buddhism, folks like Longchenpa and kukai?

[Anonymous No.17518993]

What do buddhists think of christianity?

[Anonymous No.17519025]

>>17518818
Dd they even think so/care themselves?

[Anonymous No.17519035]

>>17519025
This "most buddhist schools" depiction is far from accurate
The mahayanist would just go on about emptiness and the theravadin would say "yeah whatever" and they'd share a cup of tea or something

[Anonymous No.17519053]

>>17519035
>The mahayanist would just go on about emptiness and the theravadin would say "yeah whatever" and they'd share a cup of tea or something
How quiant

[Anonymous No.17519077]

>>17519053
buddhist sects in real life don't have autistic arguments like we do here anon, they get along and do their own thing

[Anonymous No.17519093]

>>17519035
>>17519053
Pictured, non-dual Buddhist alliance against paleo-thomists c. 200 CE

[Anonymous No.17519099]

>>17519077
Yes im aware, one of the reasons why this board is increasingly useless for such kind of discussions

[Anonymous No.17519110]

>>17519093
baste
>>17519099
it's not useless, you can still make buddhism threads and get good posters

[Anonymous No.17519128]

>>17519110
>you can still make buddhism threads and get good posters
such people are becoming ever more an endangered species here, in my experience

[Anonymous No.17519143]

>>17519128
/lit/'s dharma needs to die out before we get our own Maitreya, no worries

[Anonymous No.17519160]

>>17519143
>Maitreya
Will be interesting to see what happenes to guenonfag when he comes kek

[Anonymous No.17519174]

>>17519160
since he's already getting wrestled into submission like a little bitch in every thread, I can only imagine

[Anonymous No.17519234]

>>17518808
>The deer exerts a causal effect upon the arrow, which exerted a causal effect upon the bow.
That’s wrong, the deer does not induce any change in the arrow until the arrow has already left the bow and impacted the deer, in which case the deers body may bend the arrow. But by then its too late and that arrow does not impact the bow after it has been shot, so there is no inducement of change in the bow that can be traced from the arrow to the deer, unlike the change in the deer induced by the arrow which can be traced back to the bow.
>All interactions are two way by default
>Correct, which is why I'm kind of baffled that you're seriously trying to argue that one-way effects can happen.
Because ‘interaction’ is not synonymous with ‘influence’ but they are two separate things, look them up in the dictionary they have different meanings. Not all influencing consists of an interaction. Influence that is non-mutual is not an interaction.
> You can't seriously believe that an arrow can be shot from a bow and not have some kind of effect on the bow.
That’s the arrow inducing change in the bow, the deer itself does not induce any change in the bow, nor does the deer directly act upon something else which then induces a change in the bow.
> In simple terms, it goes from unseen to seen. That's an effect upon it.
No it’s not, seeing induces no change in the star that’s hundreds of light-years away, are you retarded? What change could we possibly induce in a star that’s hundreds of light-years away when we detect it through a telescope? In such a scenario we don’t induce any change in that star whatsoever, if you want to claim otherwise than list the change that we induce in it. Going from unseen to seen only refers to our subjective experience of something, it doesn’t describe or capture any actual change in the object itself being discussed. The things that the light impacts or ceases to impact after being emitted hundreds of light-years from a star induces no change in that star itself

[Anonymous No.17519250]

>>17519234
>The photons that hit your eyes ARE parts of the sun.
The sun refers to the physical entity consisting of everything within the bounds of the globe of the sun, to say otherwise is to say that everywhere that light exists the sun exists there too which is complete nonsense, it violates the law of non-contradiction because then you’d inevitably be ascribing mutually contradictory attributes to the sun when describing how the sun-as-ball and the sun-as-light are different (such as one is emitted, the other the emitter).
>>17518829
Its a mixed bag, some tantric Buddhism like Gelug I see as completely stupid. Some like Jonang more or less take the position of Advaita or other Hindu non-dualism but expressed through Buddhist terminology. I havn’t read anything of Kukai but from reading about him he seems like Jonang closer to the Hindu ontological non-dualism than a lot of other Vajrayana. Between on the one hand Jonang and on the opposite end Gelug you have schools existing on the spectrum between them, as far as these go I think that some of them probably have good yogic/meditative practices, and I have enjoyed glancing through some of their texts. Some of Longchenpas works are highly reminiscent of say the Ashtavakra Gita for example. I don’t think a school has to have its metaphysics be 100% correct in order for them to have spiritually relevant teachings, so for that reason I don’t write off the entirety of Vajrayana even though I generally heavily disagree with Buddhism. If joining a Dzogchen group and studying their texts helps someone realize non-duality, than that’s great for them, but I wouldn’t offer my unconditional support for it because I still see Nyingma etc metaphysics as still not being totally correct. IMO joining some Vajrayana sect and trying to attain a state of non-duality that way is certainly better than being an atheist or taking Abhidhamma-based metaphysics as the truth.

[Anonymous No.17519296]

>>17519077
>buddhist sects in real life don't have autistic arguments like we do here anon,
completely wrong, the ruling Gelug sect of Tibet for centuries suppressed the works of other schools that criticized Gelug doctrine, they engaged in massive censorship, burned scrolls, destroyed printing blocks and closed down or took over other sects monasteries/temples. There are a large number of important Tibetan texts from multiple schools which are forever lost because of this.

[Anonymous No.17519360]

Buddhist Monk: Yes, that’s the statement. Everything in the empirical world is only a stream of passing Dharmas, which are mere processes - impersonal and evanescent processes. These Dharmas can be characterized as Anatta (Anatma - Bereft of Self), i.e., being without a persisting self, without independent existence. [The Dharma theory of Buddhism]

Acharya: Ok. I get your point of view about momentariness, impermanence and Anatta. May I ask you a very simple question? When you started the sentence “The Question is immaterial and irrelevant” – it was immaterial and irrelevant to whom? What or who is the Subject to whom those perceptions appeared?

Buddhist Monk: (Enraged) To no one in particular. There is nothing more to this alleged (sic) world’s existence than the co-ordinated flux of wide variety of elemental, co-dependent factors (Dharmas), which bring forth collective experience of world-consciousness in individual and universal aspects. So, the perception occurred to some non-existent entity.

Acharya: Ok! Hypothetically accepting your view, tell me Monk, who is the witness to these arising of dependent elements? Who/what is the witness to the flux? Against what the flux is not static? If you are moving in a train at the same speed with another train, you will see both trains as stationary. A perception of speed requires comparison with a stationary object. Likewise, perception of flux requires a changeless object for measure of standard. Who/What is that?

Buddhist Monk: I object! What is the necessity of a Witness? That too, eternal permanent witness?! No way such a thing exists. People die and their trace vanishes, things get broken, Worlds get destroyed – all without leaving trace. Where is permanence?

Acharya: Hold your breath, Holy Monk. A witness is necessary in order to have a cognition of any phenomenon – take the event of your momentariness or flux. A witness can only say something is transitory or momentary. If there is no Witness, who would perceive and who would make a statement?

Buddhist Monk: If you say there has to be a Witness, who will witness that witness? How would you establish that Witness exists? What you say is wrong because there will be infinite regress. You say a Witness is necessary to claim cognizance. Fine, then tell me, who will say that there is a Witness? Where will this infinite loop end? In your Theory, everything has to be present to make the Witness known. This is nothing but Dependent Origination.

Acharya: Dear Friend, there is no logical necessity (Akanksha) for something to grasp the grasper. The witness stands self-proved. (This is one of the greatest sources of Pramana – Arthapatti as used by the Acharya)

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17519737]

>>17519250
That’s a fair enough response, Kukai’s tantra is like you took Vajrayana and injected an even further portion of original tantric Hinduism into it, far more hindu than Tibetan Buddhism to the point where they’ll gladly speak of an Atman explicitly for example, Longchenpa will himself call the ultimate state the supreme monarch and other such.

I think you Buddhists and Hindus on here ought to have nicer relations, I mean you clearly see value in some forms of Buddhism but it’s a meme around here how you two groups go at each other’s throats, of course that is a meme and I’m sure you guys enjoy polemics and debate, we all do, but eh, perhaps it’s annoying of me but I think more anons would gain knowledge if these groups had more nice interactions on here gently comparing and contrasting latter Buddhism and Hinduism.

[Anonymous No.17519871]

>>17519737
This, I am more attracted to Buddhism but I have nothing against Hinduism, on the contrary. I wish threads about either religions could go without constant shitflinging.

[Anonymous No.17520069]

>>17519737
My experience posting here has honestly been that the majority of Buddhists don't seem to have any interest in Hinduism, and that they only ever chime in to talk shit about it and say that it's wrong like 90% of the time, even before shit-flinging between Hindus and Buddhists became the norm. I wasn't even hostile to Buddhism when I first started to post about Hindu philosophy here and it was only after months and months of seeing this largely one-sided hostility occur that I grew slightly annoyed and started to research the various arguments people have made against Buddhism.

I think it has to do with there being a sort of "foundational mythos" (accurate or not) of Buddhism being inherently hostile to Hinduism, and I think a lot of western atheists continue to hold onto their resentment of Christianity and then project that onto Hinduism once they get into Buddhism. I have had a few genuinely interesting conversations with a few Buddhists here but they get drowned out amidst the torrent of crap and I hardly even remember most of them now.

[Anonymous No.17520093]

>>17520069
Are you guenonfag?
Honestly it'd be better if everyone just started being less hostile and provocative. Nowadays people only talk shit about hinduism because of the guenonfag meme.

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17520224]

>>17520069
I mean that’s understandable and a quality converts always have, more public radical behavior.

But I think that’s just sorta a 4chan macho argumentative style, which we (myself included) often cannot help but inject into every single topic. Know what I mean.

I know ya copy paste much and as someone who also does it, you have to know how much of a bad taste that puts into peoples mouths. I know it’s tiring but short bursts of personal conversation can really help people from what I’ve seen.

I think those few gold moments are worth the shit and as we all seek to cultivate wisdom, it is logical that we strive to pull even gold and wisdom out of those shitposters, the resentful, the angry and the like as you mention. Many times I’ve had people respond to me seeking a uglier argument and I’ve found I’ve been able to still have some decent discussions with them.

But eh, I’m not like telling you to do anything, just throwing how I and I think a few others see ya. You clearly study Anon and I assume contemplate, best not to cleave to resentment unless you desire to use that as a form of meditation in of itself.

[Anonymous No.17520243]

>>17520093
Yes, I am guenonfag.

I plan on spending much less time on /lit/ this year and in upcoming ones anyway, but the same factors which made most of the Buddhists here act hostile to Hinduism when I first started to post politely about Hinduism here while minding my own business and not attacking people years ago will still be there, just as they were there before I started posting, so I don't have very high hopes of things changing.

A major cause of the continued tensions is that one dude who is obsessed with me and who stalks me (the same one who assembled most of the schizo images about me), I don't see him going anywhere. Even when I don't post on /lit/ for weeks or months at a time I can still open up any random thread about eastern philosophy and he is there in every single one always spamming his anti-guenonfag and anti-Vedanta images over and over with the same ridiculous bait, he brings a very negative energy with him always. It seems he lives to vent his anger at me, even when I stay off /lit/ for long periods of time he does it in my absence and just directs it at people who talk about the same subjects I like to talk about. I can't do anything about him as he is mentally ill, it's unfortunate but what can you do.

[Anonymous No.17520283]

>>17520243
>what can you do.
Just not engage, I guess. Honestly, getting into that game just doesn't bring anything good to anyone while attempting to cool things down will most certainly allow for more fruitful and interesting discussion once people realize there's less shitposting and trolling going on.