/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.19186189]

skip western philosophy.
look into the east

[Anonymous No.19186202]

No

[Anonymous No.19186203]

>>19186189
Skip philosophy. Look into the self

[Anonymous No.19186216]

>>19186203
Based beyond belief
One of the most courageous and painful task

[Anonymous No.19186232]

>>19186203
based

[Anonymous No.19186268]

>>19186189
Western "philosophy" is just african philosophy.

[Anonymous No.19186276]

Skip metaphysics, look into the void

[Anonymous No.19186316]

>>19186189
I'm currently marathoning the Tao Teaching by Leo Zoo. It's pretty good.

[Anonymous No.19186317]

>>19186276
>>19186203
How

[v_v !!+e0M0fBMYzt No.19186322]

>>19186317

[Anonymous No.19186335]

>>19186322
DMT entities seem fishy no? Even outside of the christcuck fearmongering

[Anonymous No.19186361]

>>19186335
Do not be afraid.

[v_v !!+e0M0fBMYzt No.19186368]

>>19186335
fishy?
psychedelics are pretty safe with minimal precautions, especially compared to like weed/edibles

[Anonymous No.19186380]

>>19186368
I mean the entities themselves
We don't know their endgame

[v_v !!+e0M0fBMYzt No.19186393]

>>19186380
they're formed by your mind. they don't have any endgame. like a nonsense dream

[Anonymous No.19186394]

>>19186380
I said, do not be afraid.

[Anonymous No.19186397]

>>19186393
But what if they're real
What do you make of the soul surgery experiences for example?

[Anonymous No.19186449]

>>19186397

[Anonymous No.19186467]

>>19186189
Yes, but you’re still retarded.

[Anonymous No.19186524]

>>19186449
What's your point

[Anonymous No.19186542]

>>19186317
>how
Read this

https://realization.org/p/ashtavakra-gita/richards.ashtavakra-gita/richards.ashtavakra-gita.html

For longer prose writings dealing with the same concepts, read Adi Shankara’s commentaries on the Upanishads and Bhagavad Gita, or read Venkatesananda’s 700+ page translation of the Yoga Vasistha

[Anonymous No.19186571]

>>19186203
Skip self, look at nothing.

[Anonymous No.19186605]

>>19186203
transcendentally based

[Anonymous No.19186606]

>>19186571
Based buddhist

[Anonymous No.19186617]

>>19186189
Gonna skip both 'cause they're polished bullshit.

[Anonymous No.19186633]

>>19186203
This man speaks the truth.

[Anonymous No.19186651]

>>19186203
Look into the void beyond the self.

[Anonymous No.19186729]

>>19186524
I speak for the angels, and you should not be afriad.

[Anonymous No.19186820]

>>19186651
There is no void beyond the self other than the absence of it self. Don't confuse the absence with the Thing.

[Anonymous No.19186844]

>>19186820
In otherwords, absence of the thing is not the thing in absence.

[Anonymous No.19186889]

>>19186820
>>19186844
>they're starting to do philosophy again
Shut the fuck up and sit down

[Anonymous No.19187049]

>>19186322
literally demons

[Anonymous No.19187340]

>>19186189
I started with Daoism. Probably a better basis than the Greeks, personally speaking. At least for the individual

[Anonymous No.19187361]

>>19186322
Where do I get a dmt vape pen?
>>19187049
npc

[Anonymous No.19187366]

Hope you started with the Jeets

[Anonymous No.19187521]

>>19186189
you are a crayon eating retard why don't you use all available knowledge

[Anonymous No.19187722]

>>19186571
If I have no self, then why are there perceptions? I understand that I am not my thoughts, or body, quite obvious in retrospect, and yet, I cannot conceive of a perception that a self does not perceive.
How can perceptions and phenomena exist if there is nothing that observes or contains those perceptions and phenomena?
Do Buddhists think that there are sensory perceptions or experiences happening and yet there is nobody to experience that? At least the Advaitins acknowledge an awareness that has those perceptions.

[Anonymous No.19187736]

I’m not brown though

[Anonymous No.19187787]

>>19187722
>At least the Advaitins acknowledge an awareness
This is a tad dishonest because they believe the awareness is permanent, which is bogus. If awareness were permanent you'd be aware at all times, having been aware at all times, for all time, and you cannot establish that at all. As Indian scholastics are fond of saying, you're describing the hare's horns or the barren woman's son.

[Anonymous No.19187945]

>>19187787
>If awareness were permanent you'd be aware at all times
We are permanently aware at all times as far as we find, we never find ourselves to be unaware. The absence of awareness is impossible to establish.
>b-b-but what about dreamless sleep
It’s impossible to show, experience or demonstrate that your awareness is gone in sleep, if you experienced this absence, then you were actually aware since you you can’t experience anything without being aware of that experience. Inferring its absence simply because of the lack of memory upon waking is not proof because that’s just making a fallible guess as to what’s going on, and absence of B (memory) doesn’t demonstrate the absence of A (awareness) which is something different than memory; the fact that loud noises or being struck can immediately wake you up from deep sleep implies that there is still subtle awareness remaining in this state.
>having been aware at all times, for all time, and you cannot establish that at all.
What do you mean? If we are aware at all times…. then it follows that the fact that we are aware at all times is itself established.

[Anonymous No.19187948]

>>19187736
No, not the near east. Look EAST.

[Anonymous No.19187993]

>>19186189
I rather read Schopenhauer. Don't even care if he doesn't use the concepts correctly or whatever

[Anonymous No.19188021]

>>19187945
Your awareness is not permanent. For starters, you were conceived and born into this life, a life which ends, and you have no reason to assume you'll be aware after the fact (or that you were aware before conception/birth). You are aware of some things at some times and others things at other times—momentariness is all memory has to work with and deliver to awareness—yet this is apparently how you assume awareness is permanent—the things go but your awareness doesn't—but if nothing you are aware of is itself permanent what leads you to believe awareness is? That you can't remember not being aware? Now a lack of memory has become proof after all!

[Anonymous No.19188054]

>>19187722
>Do Buddhists think that there are sensory perceptions or experiences happening and yet there is nobody to experience that?
Yes.

>At least the Advaitins acknowledge an awareness that has those perceptions?
>abc has xyz
Problem is the framing of the subject. When you make an ownership claim, you have made an implicit self reference. Then you claim others make the self reference as well and wonder why Buddhists don't acknowledge this.

The Buddhist have laid out the attack on self-hood or rather than core-selfhood idea that Hindus (and other self affirming philosophies/religions) religions propose. The understanding of Skandha is a powerful one. So powerful that Advaitans implicitly acknowledge it to be true. The difference is Advaitas claim consciousness is the REAL core of the self/soul. Where as Buddhist see Skandha as the flawed understanding of the core self/core soul.

[Anonymous No.19188060]

>>19187945
I agree with your reasoning, but why can't I, as awareness, control my sensory experiences? Why don't I have super powers? Why can't I fly? Why can't I time travel? I know that attachment to these desires is antithetical to nondual realization, but at least the possibility exists right, logically speaking?

[Anonymous No.19188127]

>>19188054
>The difference is Advaitins claim consciousness is the REAL core of the self/soul. Where as Buddhists see Skandha as the flawed understanding of the core self/core soul.
What? If consciousness is not the self, then what is the self? I thought Buddhists believe in non-self?

[Anonymous No.19188155]

>>19188127
>What? If consciousness is not the self, then what is the self? I thought Buddhists believe in non-self?
Skandha is the framework for Buddhist to breakdown. Its not a framework for Buddhist to take as real.

Think of it like this.

>Theist: God is real
>Atheists: Lets examine what that "God is"
>A: God is this feeling
>A: God is this literature history
>A: God is the unexplained gap of knowledge
>A: God is etc etc
>A: This is what God is.

Do you believe Atheists believe in God? No. The breakdown of what the God people believed in is what the Atheists are arguing. It doesn't say Atheists believe in special non-God.

Buddhists do the same.

>Hindus/Theists/Soul-ist: We believe in Soul
>Buddhist: The soul you believe in is your feelings
>B: The soul you believe in is your body
>B: etc etc

Buddhist don't believe in non-soul, they don't believe in soul.

[Anonymous No.19188178]

>>19188127
In Jeetspeak, consciousness is vijñana and self is atman. Vijñana is one of the aggregates or skandhas, which are usually given as five, all related to perceiving or experiencing phenomena in some way. Vijñana is tied to sensory perceptions, basically you have an eye consciousness of what is seen by the eye, an ear consciousness of what is heard by the ear, etc. For Buddhists these are momentary and do not add up to a permanent self. Nor do the other aggregates, or skandhas, hence the atman cannot be located in the skandhas or apart from them, an-atman, no-self. This has been the subject of debate for millennia

[Anonymous No.19188227]

>>19188155
I get the gist of what you're saying. Thank you for your explanation.
>>19188178
What's up with deep sleep then? There's no sensory organs to perceive the nothingness in deep sleep, and yet there is that ever-present darkness and lack of other senses like touch. What's happening here, in Buddhist terms? The advaitins like using the deep-sleep example a lot, but I don't know what Buddhists think of it.
Also, thanks for the clarification too.

[Anonymous No.19188245]

>>19186317
Read and study Evola's ITM

[Anonymous No.19188260]

>>19188227
I know there's a few answers to the deep sleep thing but I've usually glossed over it. It's a bit like the question of where your mind "goes" during the jñanas, which is definitely answered repeated in the nikayas (I don't remember but should not be hard to locate in either DN or MN). Short answer is that there's a subtle layer of consciousness (though this is not permanent but conditioned like any other phenomena). The smart ass answer is that waking and sleep are both delusional forms of experience anyway.

[Anonymous No.19188273]

>>19188245
I've read a few books by Evola and it just seemed like yet another occultist trying to put words on things that don't need to be described
I don't trust anyone who claims to have any kind of system for something like this

[Anonymous No.19188326]

>>19186189
read the heart sutra

[Anonymous No.19188354]

>>19187722
>I cannot conceive of a perception that a self does not perceive.
> conceive

exactly, you can't conceive it, but that doesn0t mean reality has to work according to how you conceive things
when you say you conceive a self, what you're actually saying is that according to your experiences, you reflect and articulate a notion of self, but as you pointed yourself
>I understand that I am not my thoughts, or body, quite obvious in retrospect
you just have to do the same articulation iwwth the self
>How can perceptions and phenomena exist if there is nothing that observes or contains those perceptions and phenomena?
it helps to notice that anatta is not a total negation of self or awarness, it just means that the self is not eternal and outisde the flux of becoming, since the only way i can perceive the self is in the same state of becoming, i can only be aware of awarness by singular finite moment of awarness, there's no pure state of awarness, that's just a logical abstraction i can create in my mind
nonetheless buddhist still think there's something that can tarscend this form of space and time, they just don't think is the self, or focusing on the self and an absolute divne self is a productive way to do it, since sooner or later you'll end up cosifing yourself

[Anonymous No.19188358]

>>19186189
Weeaboos are a god damn plague

[Anonymous No.19188388]

>>19187945
>We are permanently aware at all times as far as we find
this is a play on words really, you'r enot permanently aware all the time, you're permanently conciouss all the time, which still has some nuance, you're conciusness is not the same all the time and it will soone ror later die, whcih if you wanna believe in an eternal soul, still implies a huge change in his format
so seeing as awarness and conicusness can change is not far fetched that it can ends of radically transforms

[Anonymous No.19188433]

>>19187945
>we never find ourselves to be unaware
yes we do,if so errors and parapraxis wouldn't be possible

[Anonymous No.19188457]

>>19188021
>Your awareness is not permanent. For starters, you were conceived and born into this life, a life which ends, and you have no reason to assume you'll be aware after the fact (or that you were aware before conception/birth).
LOL, this isn’t an argument that helps you at all, you are just assuming the materialist conception of consciousness is correct, but assumptions don’t prove anything. That our memory doesn’t extend to before our bodies were born does nothing to prove that awareness was not also present, because awareness isn’t memory and the absence of B doesn’t prove the absence of A. We are obviously talking about a Hindu conception of eternal consciousness, of Atman (Self), in order to provide an argument against this you would actually have to cite a demonstrable example of awareness not being present, but we have no proof awareness didn’t always exist or that it wasn’t in another body before this one. Simply citing the materialist conception (which is hypothetical and unproven) provides no evidence of anything and no argument in favor for anything.

>You are aware of some things at some times and others things at other times—momentariness is all memory has to work with and deliver to awareness
memory can also record the continued presence of awareness in every moment in which memory is functioning, so it’s not true that memory only works with momentary things
>—yet this is apparently how you assume awareness is permanent—the things go but your awareness doesn't—but if nothing you are aware of is itself permanent what leads you to believe awareness is?
Because its always present in any instance we are capable of examining and its absence can never be demonstrated. Also, awareness is self-intuiting (i.e. reflexive, self-revealing) so it’s not true as you said that the only things we are aware of are momentary, because awareness is reflexively conscious of its own continuing and unchanging presence, and this presence isn’t momentary. I believe that awareness is permanent because I accept what the Upanishads say as true because it makes sense intuitively, spiritually, logically; it seems to be the most coherent world-view to me.

[Anonymous No.19188477]

>>19188433
What you describe seem to be only consequences of unawareness.

Do I see a glacier when I look into a river?

If you are aware of unawareness you aren’t unaware.

[Anonymous No.19188481]

>>19188457
>memory can also record the continued presence of awareness in every moment in which memory is functioning
Oh and I'm the one with materialist assumptions? Lmao

[Anonymous No.19188486]

>just abandon your entire tradition

[Anonymous No.19188492]

>>19188486
Don the rainbow cassock and dance with your pride priests why don'tcha? You best start believing in "your" tradition

[Anonymous No.19188495]

>>19186189
No thanks.

[Anonymous No.19188530]

>>19188054
>The understanding of Skandha is a powerful one. So powerful that Advaitans implicitly acknowledge it to be true.
No, they don’t; they say that the Buddhist skhanda model doesn’t satisfactorily account for our unity of conscious being, the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad from centuries before Buddha already said that the Atman does not think or act and that our real Self or true identity is not the body and mind; the notion that the Self of consciousness is outside the psycho-physical aggregate predates Buddhism and isnt based on any acknowledgment of the Skandha theory. In addition to the Upanishads it was a part of the early Samkhya school as well which also predates Buddhism.

>>19188060
>I agree with your reasoning, but why can't I, as awareness, control my sensory experiences?
Because according to Advaita awareness is non-volitional and volition inheres in the mind. The mind thinks and directs while awareness is just always present, revealing itself and other things without acting.
>but at least the possibility (of superpowers) exists right, logically speaking?
Advaita Vedanta says that siddhis may sometimes happen on rare occasions to people and that people also acquire superpowers in the Brahmaloka if you reach it, although this latter example is perhaps more like being in control of a lucid dream, and you remain there instead of wielding those powers on earth.

[Anonymous No.19188553]

>>19188457
Let's say that what you're saying is correct. If what you are is truly awareness, why can't you control the contents of awareness arbitrarily? Like a lucid dreamer summoning whatever the fuck he wants, why can't awareness do whatever it wants too? At the moment a lucid dreamer realizes he is dreaming, he can control his dream. If Shankara realized he is that which everything appears in, then why are there no historical accounts of him doing supernatural things like summoning earthquakes or whatever? Sure, he is no longer suffering, but theoretically, he should have reality-bending powers, right?

[Anonymous No.19188568]

>>19188553
>>19188530
Just as I typed my reply too. Thanks for that explanation. Ignore my redundant post.

[Anonymous No.19188571]

>>19188553
Yeah if the Buddha could cover his whole face with his tongue and make his cock appear inside people's minds I'd like to hear what sort of powers Shankara had other than sitting on an animal skin and posting cringe.

[micsimone No.19188577]

>>19188495
lown around the windvane.

[Anonymous No.19188615]

>>19188530
>No, they don’t
Sure they do. The idea of self being an illusion is a Buddhist one. The advaita adopts it though. Or rather they modified it agree with Buddhist idea about everything being an illusion. Its just the the consciousness is however only real thing to Advaita.

This is a radical departure from common Hinduism that Advaita was someones called psuedo-Buddhism by other Hindus sects.

[Anonymous No.19188628]

>>19188615
It is in fact so similar that in a very late work of Indian Buddhist scholasticism by Shantarakshita, he describes their errors as minor, whereas other Indian systems get much longer critique

[Anonymous No.19188651]

>>19188481
>Oh and I'm the one with materialist assumptions? Lmao
Admitting that memory records things and events is not a materialist assumption, that’s just admitting what memory does, every religion and their theory of mind all admit that memory involves recording or storing things as memories
>>19188433
>yes we do,if so errors and parapraxis wouldn't be possible
That’s wrong, because as the other poster already pointed out, when cognitive errors and parapraxis happen you still remain aware in that moment, which is how you are aware of those errors.
>>19188354
>since the only way i can perceive the self is in the same state of becoming
That’s not a refutation of an unchanging self if you believe that what you are perceiving is not the self to begin with as Buddhists do
>>19188388
>this is a play on words really, you'r enot permanently aware all the time, you're permanently conciouss all the time,
Advaita, and me, consider awareness to be the exact same as consciousness
>you're conciusness is not the same all the time and it will soone ror later die, whcih if you wanna believe in an eternal soul, still implies a huge change in his format
No, because awareness can remain 100% unchanging while the death of the body and a new body arising are just changing exterior circumstances being successively associated with this unchanging awareness.
>so seeing as awarness and conicusness can change
You have not cited any demonstrable examples of them changing

[Anonymous No.19188703]

>>19188651
>Admitting that memory records things and events is not a materialist assumption
Where is this recording? What is this recording? You've presented memory as "recording the continued presence of awareness" but that is not at all what memories are. Memories are limited impressions stitched back together by imagination. You are not playing a recording but imagining something not present. And this imagining has more to do with the present state of your mind than it does with what you experienced in previously, as most of those details are gone from the mind except for a few major points which you may or may not recall accurately

[Anonymous No.19188758]

>>19188571
The hagiographies written after his life mention him using various powers like astral projection and entering into others bodies, but in his actual writings he says that siddhis are a distraction from the spiritual path and you should not pursue them or attempt to wield them, and that if they happen you should not attach any importance to them.

>>19188615
>Sure they do. The idea of self being an illusion is a Buddhist one. The advaita adopts it though. Or rather they modified it agree with Buddhist idea about everything being an illusion.
That's wrong, because the pre-Buddhist Upanishads already talk about everything aside from the Atman being an illusion/false, the pre-Buddhist Chandogya Upanishad says in multiple passages (6.1.4) that all changing phenomena are false and that the unchanging alone is real, and it cycles through various examples like clay and gold to illustrate this repeatedly. The pre-Buddhist Brihadaranyaka Upanishad also says that multiplicity is unreal (4.4.19) and that it only appears because of maya (2.5.19). The Svetasvatara Upanishad (6.15) says verbatim that "The Supreme Self alone exists".

This doctrine existed long before Buddha was even born, as shown by the pre-Buddhist Upanishads talking about it, this is one reason why some consider Buddhism to be a heretical spinoff of Hinduism.

>>19188628
> very late work of Indian Buddhist scholasticism by Shantarakshita, he describes their errors as minor, whereas other Indian systems get much longer critique
Shantarakshita didn't seem to understand Advaita very well, as he wrongly attributes the Buddhist doctrine of sahopalambha to the Advaita conception of consciousness, when in fact Advaita completely rejects this and this position of sahopalambha which is held by Dharmakirti, Shantarakshita etc was already refuted by Shankara, and later by others like Vimuktātman. Shantarakshita's 'criticisms' of Advaita fail since they largely hinge on this amateur misunderstanding.

[Anonymous No.19188779]

>>19188758
>Advaita completely rejects this
Ah so it was his error that was minor and Advaita's that was great

[Anonymous No.19188793]

>>19186203
This anon took the Hermann Hesse pill

[Anonymous No.19188800]

>>19188703
>Where is this recording? What is this recording?
This memory inheres in the mind, which for Advaita and Samkhya is the subtle extension of the body (i.e. the subtle body, which Vajrayana Buddhism copied from Hinduism like much else), whereas on the other hand consciousness is not an extension of the body but rather is different from it. This is not a materialist conception because it's admitting consciousness to have transcendental, non-physical existence.

>You've presented memory as "recording the continued presence of awareness" but that is not at all what memories are. Memories are limited impressions stitched back together by imagination.
Memories of any event inevitably include the memory of you being conscious of that event, otherwise you wouldn't have been able to form a memory of that event to begin with if you weren't conscious of that event, so in memory of anything, your awareness was present then in the event that memory is referring to; so each and every memory extending back is invariably the memory of your awareness being continuously present as well.

[Anonymous No.19188821]

>>19188779
>Ah so it was his error that was minor and Advaita's that was great
Nope, Advaita is free from error and the Yogacharins are wrong. Sahopalambha is complete nonsense and falls apart under logical scrutiny, see this thread below for an examination of why it's nonsense.

>>/lit/thread/S19170356

Sahopalambha was completely demolished by Advaitins and the Buddhists failed to answer their arguments.

[Anonymous No.19188841]

>>19188800
>This memory inheres in the mind, which for Advaita and Samkhya is the subtle extension of the body
Aaand you're back to being a materialist so your earlier accusation was nonsense

[Anonymous No.19188876]

>>19188821
>The fundamental problem for Advaitins on this issue is that awareness would then be confined by time, space, and objects, and consequently will be momentary.
Lol the "problem" with it is that it is a Buddhist doctrine. Yes I suppose that makes sense, Advaita does need to negate as many Buddhist doctrines as possible to avoid being called crypto-Buddhism. Also no one replying to your thread is not a failure to answer you, it's your failure to be worthy of an anserr

[Anonymous No.19188877]

>>19188841
>uuh..... you can't say that any functions of the mind inhere in the body or you are a materialist, even if you are also positing an immortal non-physical soul comprised of awareness despite that latter position being completely incompatible with materialism,
Do you really not understand how stupid of an argument that is? Anyone who says that there is an immortal non-physical soul is by definition not a materialist, nothing else which they say after this can possibly make them a materialist, because by accepting an immortal non-physical soul they have already ruled out the possibility of materialism.

[Anonymous No.19188890]

>>19188876
>Lol the "problem" with it is that it is a Buddhist doctrine.
Not only that, but it contains many other logical contradictions as well, which are laid out in that thread. In that sentence it is just stating that sahopalambha is not acceptable to Advaitins because it contradicts what the Upanishads teach about consciousness, but the Advaitins also point out that sahopalambha is both contradicted by our experience and that it's also completely illogical, and the Buddhists had and have no way to salvage this flawed theory from these criticisms.

[Anonymous No.19188911]

>>19188877
So the body is material AND the mind is material? And realizing the problem here with preserving your idea of the immaterial soul, you've been forced to invent awareness as nth form of consciousness, which is already an nth form of mind, (which is apparently the nth form of body). The materialism keeps getting stretched and obfuscated by ever more scholasticism. Yet no matter how many permutations of mind you come up with you'll never find a way to attach it to the soul. It's as if it only "exists" for you to deny that you are materialist.

[Anonymous No.19188921]

>>19188890
>contradicted by our experience
Sorry, you believe in relevation and that you are eternally awake. I'm not sure what you call "experience" is admissible, let alone logic

[Anonymous No.19188937]

>>19188921
>I'm not sure what you call "experience" is admissible, let alone logic
Now you are just making personal attacks on me because you can't defend the flawed Buddhist idea itself from the criticisms of Vedantins that expose it as illogical. Online buddhists are so predictable.

[Anonymous No.19188949]

>>19188937
Why am I obligated to defend some turboautistic scholastic nitpick made in bad faith by a dead theorist? You think this "defeats" anything? Can you state the "flaw" in your own words without archived walltext? The reason I only ever read the first few lines of your posts is because I immediately disagree with you.

[Anonymous No.19188970]

>>19188911
>So the body is material AND the mind is material?
Yes, Advaita and several other Hindu schools regard the mind as being comprised of the subtle elements (tanmātras) while the body is made of gross elements (bhūtas). Consciousness/awareness on the other hand is completely immaterial, partless, not comprised of any elements
>And realizing the problem here with preserving your idea of the immaterial soul, you've been forced to invent awareness as nth form of consciousness
No I'm not, since I only admit one consciousness, which is awareness. This is not "inventing" another form of awareness in addition to one I already accept, because I don't accept any other. This position just involves accepting awareness for what it is and regarding it as non-physical.
>which is already an nth form of mind
No it's not, since awareness is not a part or form of the mind.
>The materialism keeps getting stretched and obfuscated
Did you forget that it's impossible for this position to be materialist since it admits the existence of non-material things? No you didn't forget but you are just posturing like a moron.
>Yet no matter how many permutations of mind you come up with you'll never find a way to attach it to the soul.
The soul of awareness is unattached and unaffected and simply illuminates the mind while remaining separate from it, similar to how the sun illuminates earth while remaining separate and not attached to the earth.

[Anonymous No.19188981]

>>19186203
What self?

[Anonymous No.19188997]

>>19188970
You've taken mind and blown it up into a bunch of near synonyms. It accomplishes nothing except to distinguish your doctrines from others. If there's already a mind and a body, why do you need a permanent awareness illuminated by a soul? What does this serve to explain that could not be explained without it? The burden is on you to rescue the speculations of the Vedas. The only reason you think you escape materialism is because you have doctrines you can't prove.

[Anonymous No.19189003]

>>19188921
I'm sorry anon, but I've read the thread, and I'm afraid that you got retroactively refuted pretty hard. This sort of thing is why Advaita Vedanta got crushed and was never taken seriously.

[Anonymous No.19189040]

>>19188260
>>19188227
In Buddhism, mental phenomena occur because of a five-fold process:
>Stuff is sensed
>Impressions form from sensory input
>Prior mental phenomena (habits, memories, etc) alter the impressions
>Habitual tendencies (more habits, memories, etc) motivate response to experience
>Awareness is created
Buddhist epistemology denies "a" consciousness; rather, the fifth of these five steps (rupa, vedana, samjna, samskrta, and vijnana) is often translated as "consciousness", but that isn't really accurate. Rather, it's a packet of mental phenomena. You're constantly getting vijnana from all six (sight, smell, taste, touch, hearing, and mind; mind is what you use for remembering, internally monologuing). This model solved a number of problems in Brahmanical thought, as it unpriveleged strictly human senses (because the universe works in Sanskrit these are the only six ways you can ever gain information, which raises questions about how higher beings and things that can engage in sonar work) and because it allowed for you to be having six sources of perception at once (Upanishadic models at the time postulated that you could not hear AND smell at the same time).

Because mind is a sense, this model can totally explain dreams, and in fact can explain why they're so weird (because the rupa, the stuff that's sensed, is just nonsensical bits of mental activity). The doctrine of Momentariness means that mental phenomena just "stacks"; so, observing a thought just generates another thought (remember, thoughts occur via the sixth sense of Mind). Momentariness ends up being a point of contention among Buddhists, however, and there's 6-7 different resulting positions in response to some problems it causes (namely the question of what links moments together).

[Anonymous No.19189098]

>>19189040
>namely the question of what links moments together
Emptiness is the key that links them.

[Anonymous No.19189137]

>>19189098
Right, the Madhyamaka is comes out of this debate (ultimately). Other options include the Sarvastivadin "self replicating dharmas", the Sautrantika "seed and sprout" model, the Yogacara "mental bed", the Theravadan "life-continuum mind", and the Pudgalavadin Pudgala.

It's worth noting that only the Yogacara, Theravada, and Madhyamaka solutions are actually adhered to by any serious number of Buddhists today.

[Anonymous No.19189158]

>>19189137
>the Sarvastivadin "self replicating dharmas", the Sautrantika "seed and sprout" model,
Punching bags for the rest of Mahayana until the end of time, or whenever Maitreya comes

[Anonymous No.19189217]

>>19188949
>Why am I obligated to defend some turboautistic scholastic nitpick made in bad faith by a dead theorist?
You're not obligated to do anything, but the point remains true that multiple Hindu philosophers refuted the Buddhist doctrine of sahopalambha, the Buddhists never provided any response that would salvage their position and they still can't today. If you just want people to regard Buddhism as wrong, then you can keep doing what you are doing. If you wanted to defend the Buddhist position to assure people that it's not wrong, you would offer an argument as rebuttal but you have none.

There is nothing autistic about any of this and debates that Buddhists have with themselves and others get just as much into particulars as those criticisms of sahopalambha do, you just don't like it when Buddhists are on the receiving end of this.

[Anonymous No.19189226]

>>19189217
>>19188949

>You think this "defeats" anything? Can you state the "flaw" in your own words without archived walltext?
Yes and yes

1) If the object of perception is identical to awareness, it will be awareness itself and not an object.
2) When awareness reveals something vanishing, like a sound abruptly ending or a light turning on/off, awareness is there to detect the exact moment of change when the object vanishes, when one is present and the other is vanishing it's a contradiction to hold them as the same since the same entity doesn't both remain present and vanish.
3) In Sahopalambha the object of perception and awareness (which Buddhists call simultaneous as well as identical) cannot be cognized simultaneously, because awareness is not an object of cognition, and nor can they be simultaneous awareness, since the object of perception is not awareness but rather the information awareness registers or that is presented to awareness.
4) If you say that one aspect of the same entity has the nature of perceiver and one aspect of that same entity has the nature of perceived, then you are violating the law of non-contradiction by trying to apply mutually exclusive attributes or natures to the same entity, since perceiver and perceived are defined in contradistinction to each other like hot and cold.
5) Momentary instances of a momentary awareness which are comprised of both a subject-aspect and object-aspect cannot combine to produce the united conscious experience that we have because one momentary awareness cannot know other momentary instances of awareness since they don't exist at the same time, so we would have constant gaps of flittering in and out of being conscious which we never find ourselves ever having.

[Anonymous No.19189232]

>>19189226
>>19188949

6) Since thoughts are objects of awareness, your position amounts to saying that individual thoughts are self-aware, having their own subject-aspect and object-aspect, if this is so then how do thoughts know each other such that it allows us to form patterns of rational and structured thought? Is the self-knowing thought aware of its own content as well as the content of the previous thought with which it is mutually connected during deliberation and rational thought?

Then if that were true we would never be able to stop thinking about whatever was the first thing we thought of upon waking up in the morning because the content of the first thought of the day would invariably form the content of the next thought, since the 2nd thought of the day would consist of its subject-aspect as well as the knowing of the content of the 1st thought of the day as its object, and then the 3rd thought would just be a subject-aspect which has for its object the 2nd thought, which is nothing other than the knowing of the 1st thought, so it's just the 1st thought repeated over and over. And as a single thought is not able to be/know two different thoughts in a single instance, it cannot both know the previous thought as its object and additionally have its own unique content-object, so a regress would be present and thinking as we know it would be impossible.

[Anonymous No.19189250]

bros why did shankara steal so many ideas and themes from mahayana buddhism?

[Anonymous No.19189265]

>>19189217
>sahopalambha
If you google this term the first hit is an archived thread on /lit/ that you made 3 days ago. The fourth post is you bumping your own thread, and the fifth, and last, post in the thread is you saying
>Yogacharins and Madhyamakin-Yogacharins BTFO!!!
Have you considered that the reason people keep disagreeing with you is because you don't know what you're talking about? Your argument is that sensory information can't be trusted, and if that's the case, why bother doing this at all? How do you know that you're even reading what I wrote? Buddhist thinkers have been going on about this stuff for awhile, and given that you don't have any clue what you're talking about (as this thread, and the thread that you made three days ago) demonstrates, why not start at the beginning? What the Buddha Taught followed by the Heart Sutra is a good place to start.

[Anonymous No.19189287]

>>19189265
Also, the actual argument that you're making in the thread is shit. To argue that mental phenomena is not momentary would mean that you could never leave a mental state nor leave one. The fact that you can forget things is a demonstration that this position is idiotic. To argue that mental phenomena doesn't have objects (which in reality means that it doesn't have causes) is similarly stupid. The fact that you're seething at the posts in this thread is a demonstration of this: the posts make you seethe. To argue otherwise would be to imply that you just randomly start seething for no reason, which would defeat your prior point as you must then save face by arguing that you're in a constant state of seething.

Your next point about arguing that nothing exists is even more absurd because it doesn't answer why there's Maya if all that exists is Atman's constant translucent self-illuminating opacity of its own awareness.

[Anonymous No.19189302]

>>19189287
>To argue that mental phenomena is not momentary would mean that you could never leave a mental state nor leave one
Not the guy you're responding to, but the inner-buddhists debated about arounds this isn't about arguing that mental phenomenas aren't nominally momentary but rather the debates are about the intrinsic underpinnings of what constitutes and what entails the encapsulation of the idea of momentariness which has problems. Its a foundational issue of the concept of momentariness itself.

[Anonymous No.19189306]

>>19188997
>You've taken mind and blown it up into a bunch of near synonyms.
No I have not, awareness isn't the mind. Any sort of mental action or feature which you can list like thoughts, memories etc are things which are presented as objects TO awareness
>It accomplishes nothing except to distinguish your doctrines from others.
That's wrong because it's accurately describing how we experience consciousness and mind as they occur in real life, and this is a wonderful accomplishment
>If there's already a mind and a body, why do you need a permanent awareness illuminated by a soul?
The illuminating awareness IS the soul, this is necessary because any attempt to say that the mind or its components like thoughts are self-aware is completely illogical and is refuted by how we experience them (because we don't experience thoughts as being self-aware)
>What does this serve to explain that could not be explained without it?
The very nature of consciousness, the hard problem of consciousness, how we are aware of things, how a unity of experience takes place
>The burden is on you to rescue the speculations of the Vedas.
Rescue from what? They reveal the most coherent worldview IMO as well as the best description of consciousness.
>The only reason you think you escape materialism is because you have doctrines you can't prove.
There is no reason to even consider materialism as worth thinking about (its funny how Buddhists slip into arguing for materialism, almost like Buddhism is crypto-materialism!) because it's an unproven and foolish theory. It's challenged by the hard problem of consciousness, and the materialist conceptions of the origin of the cosmos are all refuted by basic logic and cosmological arguments (cosmos can't be eternal because it changes and the eternal doesn't change, but contingent phenomena like the cosmos cannot be self-caused because of the very nature of what being contingent means, an infinite regress of contingency going back cannot bring forth itself into existence from nothingness as an existing thing)

[Anonymous No.19189331]

>>19189040
>because the universe works in Sanskrit these are the only six ways you can ever gain information, which raises questions about how higher beings and things that can engage in sonar work
This is wrong, languages like Sanskrit don't have their own theory of epistemology you fucking dumbass, different Hindu schools which wrote their texts IN SANSKRIT each have their own different teachings regarding means of knowledge.

>(Upanishadic models at the time postulated that you could not hear AND smell at the same time).
That's not true, stop blatantly lying you retard. The Upanishads don't say this at all

[Anonymous No.19189338]

>>19186189
>dude just forget that you exist lmao

[Anonymous No.19189366]

>>19189265
>If you google this term the first hit is an archived thread on /lit/ that you made 3 days ago.
On Google for me it's the 6th result while the first 5 are all mainly academic articles or citations from books. On duckduckgo its the first.
>Have you considered that the reason people keep disagreeing with you is because you don't know what you're talking about?
I do know what I am talking about which is why I can call out all the illogical implications of sahopalambha and why you've failed to defend the nonsense of sahopalambha against the arguments made here and elsewhere pointing out its flaws.
>Your argument is that sensory information can't be trusted, and if that's the case, why bother doing this at all?
I never said that, I accept the sensory information is valid for empirical dealings. I just don't think that Brahman can be grasped via sensory information, sensory information doesn't reveal Brahman. However, this doesn't mean that we cannot still examine how the senses work to gain valid empirical knowledge of the world, or to understand things about our consciousness based on how sensory information is presented to it.
>How do you know that you're even reading what I wrote?
Because my awareness is revealing my mind reading this at this moment.
>Buddhist thinkers have been going on about this stuff for awhile
So? They go on about a lot of bullshit too

[Anonymous No.19189384]

>>19189287
>Also, the actual argument that you're making in the thread is shit. To argue that mental phenomena is not momentary would mean that you could never leave a mental state nor leave one.
I never said that you dumbass, try reading it again. For Advaita consciousness is non-momentary and I regard thoughts and sense-perceptions as momentary. The contradictions in what I was talking about followed from your position of regarding awareness and the object of perception as being identical, all of these illogical flaws I pointed out have to do with your theory of mind and not mine. YOUR theory mind means that thoughts could never change, not mine!
>To argue that mental phenomena doesn't have objects (which in reality means that it doesn't have causes) is similarly stupid.
I never once wrote that either, can you even read?
>Your next point about arguing that nothing exists is even more absurd
I didn't say that either. The Atman exists absolutely and all phenomena are false, not non-existent.

[Anonymous No.19189399]

>>19189040
>because the universe works in Sanskrit
Do Advai*ins really?

[Anonymous No.19189409]

>>19186189
leftist infinity arguement.
>ib4dopettetheodore

[Anonymous No.19189416]

>>19189399
>Do Advai*ins really?
No, it's completely false nonsense which he made up from nothing, he has no source for it and I have called him out before for blatantly lying about it. When you point out how X Buddhist doctrine is illogical he always starts coping in every thread by lying and making up random false strawman against Hinduism to shift the focus, without ever providing any sources and despite being called out for lying.

[Anonymous No.19189438]

>>19186203
Correct, but probably not the Self you are referring to.

[Anonymous No.19189442]

>>19189302
>Its a foundational issue of the concept of momentariness itself.
There is no way to give a coherent explanation of how time is comprised of moments, the very concept itself is illogical and only makes sense if we accept it as a way that our mind categorizes things in order to make sense of the world and not as something which is actually true independent of how we conceive it. Time is partless and not comprised of moments in actuality. A moment would have to be quantified in temporal measurements before you can say that time *isn't* partless, but since you can just endlessly chop up that temporal measurement in two halves over and over again without end you never arrive at the smallest moment which would be necessary to form the building blocks or parts of time.

[Anonymous No.19189458]

>>19189442
Buddhists debated what constitutes time, momentariness and particles meant. This is how we got buddhist atomic theories. The argument moved sideways and some buddhist schools considering eternalistic view of dharmas/units of time/matter/etc. The debates divided the major buddhist schools early on. The madhyamaka won out in the end due to its all encompassing idea of emptiness.

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_atomism

[Anonymous No.19189482]

>>19189226
I don't think you understand what you're even arguing against. You're a "non-dualist" telling me that subject and object are different (you've swapped out some of the vocabulary to "awareness" and "objects of perception"). To a Buddhist, perceiver and perceived are designations and not independent entities. You waddle through your proof and almost end up at what Buddhists believe anyway, but then you decide that you want to disprove that thoughts are self-aware in order to demonstrate "united conscious experience" because you need to inject some Vedic compliant issue to stop you from being a Buddhist. But since you've argued against non-dualism you've already shot yourself in the foot (or is it Brahman's foot?)

[Anonymous No.19189485]

>>19189458
>The madhyamaka won out in the end due to its all encompassing idea of emptiness.
What do they say about time? How does the Madhyamaka claim that there are no partless things make sense when there are no quantifiable smallest parts in time which can be identified? That would seem to be a refutation of the Madhyamaka claim that nothing is partless.

[Anonymous No.19189490]

>>19189485
>how does [...] no partless things make sense when there are no quantifiable smallest parts
It sounds like you agree with there being no possibility of verifying parts as finite or actual.

[Anonymous No.19189499]

>>19189442
>There is no way to give a coherent explanation of how time is comprised of moments
Check Husserl. Lived time is comprised of prehension and prohension.

[Anonymous No.19189500]

>>19189485
Madhyamaka doesn't go into time/particles/energies etc afaik. They were advocating that these discussions are not what Buddha taught and that endless debates in philosophy (abhidhamma basically) was a waste of time. What the madhyamaka did was go back to the foundation of Buddha's teachings and boil it down to phenomenas not having any inherent self, this aligned nicely with Buddha's teaching about anatman (not self) and dependence origination to tie it back together. So that would mean phenomena of time/particles/etc would ultimately be empty regardless of what the conventional characteristics may be. So there would only be a nominal momentariness and not an ultimate thing.

[Anonymous No.19189509]

>>19189485
>>19189500
Also

Madhyamaka claim is simple to understand.

1) all phenomenas are empty of inherent existence/self
2) all phenomenas are dependent on another

They moved away from atomistic view to a post-atomic/anti-atomic/non-atomic view.

[Anonymous No.19189543]

>>19189509
>They moved away from atomistic view to a post-atomic/anti-atomic/non-atomic view.
If we view atomist idea of time/particles/energies within the buddhist tradition as a "realist" or even a "physicalist" idea, then the madhyamaka could be seen as a "non-realist" or "nominalist" or "fictionalist" or something along those lines of non-substance reality where the "matter" or the heart of any phenomena (concepts/objects/people/etc) do not have real existence beyond the apparent existence.

[Anonymous No.19189547]

>>19189482
>I don't think you understand what you're even arguing against.
I do, spare me the bullshit please
>You're a "non-dualist" telling me that subject and object are different (you've swapped out some of the vocabulary to "awareness" and "objects of perception")
The rejection of identity doesn't itself affirm the reality of difference. You should understand this yourself since in Buddhism they have the distinction between an "affirming negation" and a "non-affirming negation", just so, one can reject identity without consequently affirming the reality of difference, which is what Advaita does. For Advaita both identity and difference are maya-created categories which are not ultimately real; and what is truly apprehended in each moment is awareness alone, and that there seems to be something else aside from awareness taking place alongside it is a trick of maya. Advaita acknowledges that we have the seeming empirical perception of difference but it rejects the ultimate/true reality of difference as a category, and also rejects the ultimate/true existence of anything aside from awareness (the Atman). If you deny that one can reject identity without affirming difference then you are rejecting any distinction between an affirming negation and a non-affirming negation, and almost all of Buddhist philosophy would consider you retarded for doing so since this is a critical distinction in Madhyamaka for example.

[Anonymous No.19189548]

>>19189547
>>19189482
>To a Buddhist, perceiver and perceived are designations and not independent entities. You waddle through your proof and almost end up at what Buddhists believe anyway,
No that's wrong, because the Advaita conception of non-dual unchanging eternal consciousness is almost the complete opposite of the Buddhist concept of momentary sahopalambha awareness.
>but then you decide that you want to disprove that thoughts are self-aware in order to demonstrate "united conscious experience"
It's quite easy to demonstrate that thoughts are not self-aware which I did, that's why you couldn't even come up with a rebuttal to my argument. I didn't do that TO demonstrate united conscious experience, I did that because the notion that thoughts are self-aware is just simply incorrect, and I like refuting bullshit. That we have united conscious experience is self-evident, if it wasn't united then it would be impossible to see someone at the same time that you hear them speaking, but this is able to happen at the same time in our experience because sound and sight are integrated into a unitary display by the mind, which is then revealed to awareness.
>because you need to inject some Vedic compliant issue to stop you from being a Buddhist. But since you've argued against non-dualism you've already shot yourself in the foot (or is it Brahman's foot?)
Except that I wasn't arguing against non-dualism because to reject identify isn't to affirm difference, if you don't understand this then you have not been paying attention at all to the Madhyamaka writings that you shill, since they talk about affirming negations versus non-affirming negations. Why the fuck do you shill Madhyamaka all the time if you don't even understand basic distinctions from their writings? Are you retarded?

[Anonymous No.19189551]

>>19189499

[Anonymous No.19189630]

>>19189490
The very notion of saying that one and the same thing is both a singular thing and comprised of parts involves a subtle logical contradiction, in any case the Madhyamaka claim that everything is composite (comprised of parts) stands refuted by time.
>>19189499
>Check Husserl. Lived time is comprised of prehension and prohension.
What are his arguments for that though? And what does prohension even mean?
>>19189500
>Madhyamaka doesn't go into time/particles/energies etc afaik.
Perhaps because it would refute their claim of nothing bring partless.... however true philosophical inquiry does not limit itself to arbitrary boundaries but is unafraid to confront anything
>What the madhyamaka did was go back to the foundation of Buddha's teachings
Hmmm... I don't know, because Nagarjuna and Chandrakirit claimed to have no views and no position, but in the Samaññaphala Sutta in the Digha Nikaya one of the 6 "heresies" that are listed as heresies of Buddhism includes what is taught by the skeptic Sañjaya Belaṭṭhaputta, who advocated the suspension of judgement, in fact in that Sutta Sañjaya says when asked of another world "I do not say that there is, there is not, is and is not, neither is nor is not, another world", that sounds like Buddha retroactively refuted Nagarjuna's Catuṣkoṭi as a heresy of Buddhism!
>So that would mean phenomena of time/particles/etc would ultimately be empty
What are the arguments they would use for time being empty (arising on something else, contingent) if its partless?

[Anonymous No.19189690]

>>19189630
I would guess ESL for protention/retention.

> The perception of the sound in the perception’s ever new now is not a mere having of the sound, even of the sound in the now-phase. On the contrary, we find in each now, in addition to the actual physical content, an adumbration …. If we focus reflectively on what is presently given in the actually present now with respect to the sound of the postilion’s horn, or the rumbling of the coach, and if we reflect on it just as it is given, then we note the trail of memory that extends the now-point of the sound or of the rumbling. This reflection makes it evident that the immanent thing could not be given in its unity at all if the perceptual consciousness did not also encompass, along with the point of actually present sensation, the continuity of fading phases that pertain to the sensations belonging to earlier nows. The past would be nothing for the most consciousness belonging to the now if it were not represented in the now; and the now would not be now … if it did not stand before me in that consciousness as the limit of a past being. The past must be represented in this now as past, and this is accomplished through the continuity of adumbrations that in one direction terminates in the sensation-point and in the other direction and in the other direction becomes blurred and indeterminate. (1991: 290)

> It belongs to the essence of perception not only that it has in view a punctual now and not only that it releases from its view something that has just been, while ‘still intending’ it in the original mode of ‘just-having-been’, but also that it passes over from now to now and, in anticipation, goes to meet the new now. The waking consciousness, the waking life, is a living-towards, a living that goes from the now towards the new now. (1991: 112)

[Anonymous No.19189714]

>>19189548
>It's quite easy to demonstrate that thoughts are not self-aware which I did, that's why you couldn't even come up with a rebuttal to my argument
No one put forth the idea that thoughts were self-aware you schizo. That's you talking to yourself, or maybe you're being pranked by maya.

[Anonymous No.19190430]

>>19188477
>consequences of unawareness
exactly, a lack of awarness, thus awarnes sis not constant

>If you are aware of unawareness you aren’t unaware.
that's why, by definition, you can't be aware of unawarness

[Anonymous No.19190442]

>>19188651
>which is how you are aware of those errors
you're aware of htose errors later, not in the moemnt, thus erorrs and parapraxis show a lack of awarness in the present moment, is possible and inevitable, pure awarness just exist as an abstarct concept, an idea, real awarness changes and his bieng is in a state of flux like everything else in the world

[Anonymous No.19190453]

>>19188876
>Also no one replying to your thread is not a failure to answer you, it's your failure to be worthy of an anserr
based

[Anonymous No.19190462]

>>19189551
guenonfag BTFO once again

[Anonymous No.19190467]

>>19186189
Skip eastern look to west

[v_v !!+e0M0fBMYzt No.19190478]

>>19187361
you can straight up google deadhead chemist and it's the first result, but it's only for canada. you'll have to look in darker places if you're elsewhere

[Anonymous No.19190521]

>>19188054
>>19189040
>>19189137
>>19189226
>>19189232
>>19189250
>>19189287
>>19189499
>>19189551

dude those were actually super usefull post!! thank you so much!

[Anonymous No.19190617]

>>19189306
>The very nature of consciousness, the hard problem of consciousness, how we are aware of things, how a unity of experience takes place
you're not explaining awarness tho, you're just falling into a circular reasoning saying awraness is aware, but fail to adress the big problem that awarness need ssomething to be aware of, makinf awarness interdependent phenomena, thus making it part of a bigger more complex thing

[Anonymous No.19190625]

>>19189265
this

[Anonymous No.19190657]

>>19189384
>I never said that you dumbass
love how much guenonfag seethes when he tries to debate with buddhist, this is the same guy who said that sinc ehe read shankara he no longer fears death and he's in a "perpetual state of bliss"

[Anonymous No.19190659]

>>19186189
Skip philosophy, pursue beauty.

[Anonymous No.19190677]

>>19190659
Most based post ITT
Aesthetics are literally the only thing that matter

[Anonymous No.19190888]

>>19186322
>>19190478
I'm an interested Leaf, but idk how much I like the idea of buying psychedelics online. With my luck I'd be the one to get bopped for it.

[Anonymous No.19190925]

>>19186189
Eastern "philosophy" is a braindead deadend

[Anonymous No.19190942]

Because of globalization I really think eastern philosophy will win in the end and we will be intellectually subjugated by them. Buddhists especially portray themselves as compatible with western science altho they remain superior to it as any religion.

[Anonymous No.19191020]

>>19189714
>No one put forth the idea that thoughts were self-aware you schizo
That’s wrong, why are you so clueless about the Buddhism that you shill? Yogachara Buddhists put forward this very claim that mental events including thoughts are self-knowing and they call this svasamvedana (see pic related) this is fully accepted by Dharmakirti, and Shantaraksita and Mipham regard it as conventionally real but not ultimately real. Without even citing that the Buddhists themselves make this claim and call it svasamvedana, it follows logically as the implication of sahopalambha, because saying as Yogacharins do that awareness and its objects are identical means that thoughts comprise momentary entities which have both an objective component (the content or information of that thought, i.e. the arthākāra) and subjective component (the subjective awareness of that objective component, i.e. the grāhakākāra).

[Anonymous No.19191060]

>>19189331
Right, and this is the problem that you always run into: you have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to Buddhism OR Hinduism.

>>19189399
Yes and no. Properly, Hindus believe that the universe is "coded" in Sanskrit. So, for example, there are things (nouns), and they have properties (adjectives). This gets really nitty gritty when Hindus started arguing that Sanskrit grammatical conjugation actually determines then how things can move (tl;dr there's only a set number of ways a thing can move unless you view it as an adverbial way of moving another way). This is in both the Vedas and the Upanishads.

Shankara, however, is pretty fuzzy on just how valid the Vedas (and the Upanishads) actually are. Whereas other Hindu thinkers hold them as ironclad (except where they aren't because lmfao hinduism), Shankara is fully willing to just say that certain portions of the Vedas are flat out wrong. Because nothing exists except Atman which is Brahman's eternal translucent self-awarenss of its own opacity, an Advaita Vedantin could make the argument that the universe ISN'T coded in Sanskrit because nothing actually exists (except atman=brahman, of course).

>>19191020
>guenonfag is a phoneposter
Retroactively refuted again!

[Anonymous No.19191074]

>>19191020
Also, this demonstrates the problem with the scholasto-autism approach that you always take: you just furiously google shit (and then don't even cite the book lmfao) instead of actually reading and understanding. The fact that you rely on copy-pasting fucking sanskrit technical terms just indicates this. The "mental bed" theory does not mean that "thoughts are self aware", it means that there's a mental apparatus and that thoughts can take this apparatus (the "bed" is in the sense of "a garden bed") as an object (which is to say that according to the model in >>19189040 the "bed" can be taken as Rupa).

[Anonymous No.19191077]

>>19191074
The book is Part I - The cognitive science of consciousness, link here btw:
https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/cambridge-handbook-of-consciousness/cognitive-science-of-consciousness/2DF9FFB2C823A281291BFCBEF6721804

[Anonymous No.19191112]

So who won? The Hindpoo or the Bodhist?

[Anonymous No.19191138]

>>19191112
Hindpoo
Adi is btfoing the Buddhist as always

[Anonymous No.19191139]

>>19186633
This comic is unironically satanic

[Anonymous No.19191149]

>>19191139
Fucking how is it satanic?

[Anonymous No.19191168]

>>19190462
>A chart illustrating a proposed theory BTFOing anything
lol, no
>>19189690
This is not an argument that proves that time itself is comprised of moments or parts (if so, what is their duration?) but is just describing how our mind arranges experience in a way so that sense-perceptions leave traces. In that quote Husserl himself says that it is the ‘trail of memory’ which does this instead of time itself having multiple parts, and he says that this is just a (mental) “representation” of the past.
>>19190442
>you're aware of htose errors later, not in the moemnt, thus erorrs and parapraxis show a lack of awarness in the present moment, is possible and inevitable,
That’s wrong, you are confusing attention with awareness. Attention involves the mind focusing on things, awareness does not focus or unfocus but is unchanging and just reveals the mind and its focusing or lack of focusing on things. Even when the mind fails to sufficiently focus and it makes a mistake like a Freudian slip, you are still fully aware at the moment you attempt to say the correct thing, at the exact moment you say the mistaken word (you hear yourself say the mistake) and immediately afterwards. You don’t suddenly black out and lose all sentience every time your mind is mistaken about something, but that’s pretty ridiculous and we never experience that.
>>19190657
>this is the same guy who said that sinc ehe read shankara he no longer fears death and he's in a "perpetual state of bliss"
If they deserve it for their behavior, I will call people out for being dumbasses, liars and sophists while at the same time I am surfing on a wave of bliss. Such things are possible when you understand the sublime glory of Vedantic teachings. Also, I didn’t say in that thread that I am constantly immersed in bliss, but said that its a state which I can focus on and remain in for as long as I devote my attention to it, while my baseline state regardless of what I am focusing on is just more happy, peaceful and carefree instead of always being bliss.

[Anonymous No.19191194]

>>19191139
?

[Anonymous No.19191210]

>>19186368
In my experience, psychedelics are the most dangerous of all substances I've tried. I've either gotten psychotic or had seizures, never a single safe experience. Weed has always been harmless

[Anonymous No.19191213]

>>19189438
Do you play Pharaoh (1999) per chance?

[Anonymous No.19191216]

>>19191020
How do you go from "the knowledge that we have of our own mental states" to arguing that "thoughts are not self-aware." Being aware of your mental states is not the same as thoughts themselves being self-aware. You can't even parse the texts you're arguing with.

[Anonymous No.19191233]

>>19190617
>but fail to adress the big problem that awarness need ssomething to be aware of,
When awareness is accepted as reflexive then it is reflexively aware of itself, it has the constant self-revealing or ‘giveness’ of its own presence to itself. If you say in response “but awareness has to be aware of something else” then you are just arbitrarily rejecting reflexivity as a concept because it doesn’t meet your predetermined conception, but arbitrarily rejecting something isn’t an argument that refutes the concept of awareness being reflexive. If the basis for your rejection of reflexivity is that “awareness has to be aware of something else” then that is just circular reasoning, a logical fallacy.

[Anonymous No.19191269]

>>19191060
>you have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to Buddhism OR Hinduism.
Nope, you just make up random shit without ever posting any sources to back up your incorrect claim.
>Yes and no. Properly, Hindus believe that the universe is "coded" in Sanskrit. So, for example, there are things (nouns), and they have properties (adjectives). This gets really nitty gritty when Hindus started arguing that Sanskrit grammatical conjugation actually determines then how things can move (tl;dr there's only a set number of ways a thing can move unless you view it as an adverbial way of moving another way). This is in both the Vedas and the Upanishads.
No it’s not that’s bullshit, provide a source and cite the exact passages which say this in the Vedas and Upanishads or stop making stuff up.
>Shankara, however, is pretty fuzzy on just how valid the Vedas (and the Upanishads) actually are.
No he isn’t
>Shankara is fully willing to just say that certain portions of the Vedas are flat out wrong.
No he doesn’t, that’s made up bullshit and he doesn’t ever say this, you don’t have any source for this.
>Because nothing exists except Atman which is Brahman's eternal translucent self-awarenss of its own opacity
1) Brahman isn’t opaque
2) Changing phenomena are held to be false (mithya), which isn’t nothingness

[Anonymous No.19191281]

>>19191233
>give a shitty definition of something
>insist that it's circular logic to dispute the definition
Woah, so this is the power of scholasticism

[Anonymous No.19191392]

>>19191074
> The fact that you rely on copy-pasting fucking sanskrit technical terms just indicates this. The "mental bed" theory does not mean that "thoughts are self aware"
Dharmakriti, Shantaraksita and other Yogacharins explicitly argue for cognitions (including thoughts) being self-revealing as that picture and countless other academics sources confirm, you don’t know what you are talking about.

>it means that there's a mental apparatus and that thoughts can take this apparatus (the "bed" is in the sense of "a garden bed") as an object (which is to say that according to the model in >>19189040 the "bed" can be taken as Rupa)
WRONG, you don’t know what you are talking about. That model which you described in that post is rejected by Dharmakirti (and Dinnaga) because that model involves impressions arising from sensory input which is based on external objects but Dharmakirti rejects the very notion that there are existing external objects outside of consciousness which lead to sensory input and then perceptions, he was a subjective idealist who denied external objects. You are confusing Abhidharma epistemology with Yogachara epistemology, Dharmakirti and other Yogacharins reject the former and say unlike the Abhidharmas that mental phenomena like thoughts are self-knowing without any other awareness which knows them, and that they are not produced in response to external objects.

> Each cognition (including thoughts) arises having a double aspect: it appears as an apprehending subject and as an apprehended objected. In terms of its appearance to itself, cognition manifests as self-awareness (svasaṃvitti), which (as we saw above in §7.1) is one of the four modes of cognitive awareness under the rubric of perception.
>This subjective aspect of cognition (grāhakākāra) is just the individual's self-awareness as a cognizing agent, while the objective aspect (grāhyākāra) captures the intentional character of cognition or its object-directedness.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mind-indian-buddhism/

[Anonymous No.19191700]

>>19191216
> How do you go from "the knowledge that we have of our own mental states" to arguing that "thoughts are not self-aware."
Yogacharins like Dharmakirti et al argue that “knowledge of mental states” is just one-half of the thought-cognition itself with the second-half of that thought-cognition being the particular details of the thought itself. Advaitins criticize this as illogical and contrary to experience and I agree with them. I regard the correct position as being that thoughts are revealed to or presented to a knowing awareness which differs from those thoughts.
>Being aware of your mental states is not the same as thoughts themselves being self-aware.
I agree, however Yogachara Buddhists mostly deny that there is any awareness which knows thoughts aside from that thoughts very awareness of itself.
>You can't even parse the texts you're arguing with.
I can, and I’ve already cited multiple academic sources confirming that for Dharmakirti cognitions including thoughts are considered self-knowing.

[Anonymous No.19191758]

>>19191700
>Advaitins criticize this as illogical and contrary to experience and I agree with them. I regard the correct position as being that thoughts are revealed to or presented to a knowing awareness which differs from those thoughts.
How is the knowing awareness different from the thoughts? They only ever appear at the same time. If you are aware you are having thoughts. Have you experienced an awareness without thoughts? I guess you must be very enlightened! If so that would be supra-rational and no logical argument can be made for it. Hence it would be illogical to refer to an experience that cannot be communicated as evidence. Moreover, since Buddhists also believe in thoughtless states without believing in permanent awareness, once again you've been forced to inject the Vedas to bring doctrines up to compliance with brahminical jurisprudence

[Anonymous No.19191810]

Skip philosophy. Read Ragnar Redbeard

[Anonymous No.19191834]

>>19186203
Arete

[Anonymous No.19191845]

>>19191139
>satanic = the gnosis
cope, midwit

[Anonymous No.19191869]

>>19188273
Watch Mark Passio's "De-Mystifying the Occult" on YouTube (ca. 6h), it will serve as a substratum for reading Jung and Evola.

[Anonymous No.19191883]

>>19186189
No I shall look to the South and West

[Anonymous No.19191887]

>>19191883
As in Real west (North and South America) not the meme "west" that is just Old world bullshit.

[Anonymous No.19191966]

>>19191168
>This is not an argument that proves that time itself is comprised of moments
If you are asking for a mathematical proof of lived time, you won't get one. That's the point. Lived time is not mathematical time. You don't have a linear progression marked by a point which divides a past from a future. In lived time, you have a temporal space formed by the specificity of you psychic acts. You see, taste, act and intend in a specific timeframe which you do not control, which is the result of your physical inner operations and essence of the intentional acts. You are also "turned" toward the past and future through your present, depending on those acts. The now of political and cultural events is longer than the now of physical events.
> but is just describing how our mind arranges experience in a way so that sense-perceptions leave traces.
So? Even if transcendental time has a foundational priority over lived time, this does not make lived time "wrong" or "incorrect". It doesn't mean you can't "prove" anything about it, just that the "proof" is going to be found in a different phenomenological strata.

[Anonymous No.19191976]

>>19191869
What if I'm not interested in the occult, only in experience

[Anonymous No.19192175]

>>19191281
>shitty definition
It wasn’t a definition but just a brief description I gave while I was pointing out your logical fallacy without stopping to get into a big discussion viz. svaprakasha. If you want a precise definition, Citsukha in his work Tattva-Pradipika defines self-luminosity as “the capability of being called immediate in empirical usage while remaining at the same time a non-object of knowledge”

[Anonymous No.19192240]

>>19192175
>capability of being called immediate in empirical usage while remaining at the same time a non-object of knowledge
Ok so by your own admission there is no knowledge possible of what you're discussing. Such logic very rational

[Anonymous No.19192765]

I like this thread.

[Anonymous No.19192819]

>>19186203
Based

[Anonymous No.19192829]

I took a bit of time off to fart a bit, looks like the thread evolved quite a bit.

Needless to say, skip this thread, meditate instead.

[Anonymous No.19192993]

>>19192829
Based.

[Anonymous No.19193029]

>>19191758
>How is the knowing awareness different from the thoughts?
Because one (awareness) reveals the other, thoughts are invariably revealed by awareness. This is what allows us to say “I know what apples are and I also know what bananas are”; because awareness isn’t identical with thoughts, awareness remains the same “I” in both cases of “I’ve known apples” and “I’ve known bananas” when the thought of the fruit being associated with that awareness changes. The awareness which reveals apples is no different than the awareness which reveals bananas, the only thing changing is the fruit and not the awareness; the awareness equally reveals the object in both cases, this shows that awareness isn’t identical with thoughts, otherwise saying “my awareness has known both x and y” wouldn’t make sense because there would be no purpose in referring to a third thing which wasn’t x or y because there wouldn’t be any separate third thing. This does make sense to us though because awareness isn’t the same as thoughts.

The illogical consequences of regarding thoughts and perceptions as identical with awareness was also already addressed here >>19189226 >>19189232 Why even bother asking the question again when you failed to respond to arguments made earlier that pointed out why that position is wrong?

>They only ever appear at the same time.
So? That doesn’t indicate anything, we only encounter sound in experience at the same time as us having ears, but that doesn’t mean sound and ears are the same thing. You should be embarrassed that this is your only argument for it being true, as when applied consistently to other situations its shown to be faulty reasoning.
>If you are aware you are having thoughts.
No, if you are aware without thoughts like in dreamless sleep (which allows you to hear and be waken up by noises) or in certain kinds of deep meditation then one has awareness with no thoughts
>Have you experienced an awareness without thoughts?
Yes, while deep in meditation
>If so that would be supra-rational and no logical argument can be made for it.
How is that supra-rational, if awareness isn’t the same as thoughts, then its feasible that if thoughts subsided temporarily then awareness could persist by itself for a while.
>Hence it would be illogical to refer to an experience that cannot be communicated as evidence.
Buddhists do this themselves constantly when (wrongly) asserting that all the teachings of Buddhism can be empirically verified in jhanas and that there is no faith-based claim (but the exact nature of this cant be communicated)
>Moreover, since Buddhists also believe in thoughtless states
Such as?
>once again you've been forced to inject the Vedas
why are you constantly seething about the Vedas and Brahmins in unrelated contexts? Is it because you have no good rebuttals to the arguments themselves?

[Anonymous No.19193293]

>>19192240
>no knowledge possible of what you're discussing
That’s wrong, because in that context when Citsuka says “knowledge” he is talking about awareness/Atman and not discursive knowledge in the intellect. When he says “not an object of knowledge” for him that’s the same as “not an object of awareness”. Because awareness is self-luminous, self-intuiting by nature though, it has and is self-revealed knowledge/knowing (vijnana) without that being an object of itself (it doesn’t have a distinction of subject vs object and there is no distinction between its knowing and its being, for the Atman it’s nature/being IS the undifferentiated and impartite light of awareness)

It’s only impossible to have discursive knowledge of it, or rather any discursive knowledge of it will only be a representation of the real thing in question and not identical to unmediated and immediate realization of that real thing, it can be directly known in spiritual realization and to directly know it is to BE it.

Self = Atman = consciousness = awareness = knowledge (vijnana)

[Anonymous No.19193809]

>>19192240
In Advaita Vedanta there is no knowledge except Brahman's opaque self-awareness of its own non-dual translucence. It's sort of a "gotcha", as logic, inference, deduction, empiricism, etc are all invalid due to the inherent nihilism of the system. You can't know nuffin because you don't exist.

[Anonymous No.19194283]

>Same handful of autists nitpicking and making huge wall of text posts
>I've been browsing these threads for 3 years and still have no idea what they're talking about

[Anonymous No.19194290]

>>19194283
Meditate and you'll be able to pick up some of the things

[Anonymous No.19194293]

>dude the tao is like... unexplainable
>if you know, you know
>btw i am a guru and you should listen to my holy teachings

biggest grift of all time lmao. eastern phil/religion is largely nonrigorous quasi-religious bullshit made up by charlatans

[Anonymous No.19194307]

>>19194293
i mean, it's survived over 2 millenia, seems p rigorous to me

[Anonymous No.19194338]

>>19194283
Literally just start with What the Buddha Taught, then read the Heart Sutra. That's it. You'll understand these threads afterwards. I'm serious, this stuff isn't high level (it absolutely could be, but guenonfag is a retard and keeps getting hung up on "karma 101" level stuff).

[Anonymous No.19194357]

>>19193029
>Why even bother asking the question again
Because your answers suck. You're only ever "aware" of an object. Objects are impermanent, along with the awareness of them. Somehow you've lept to awareness needing to be permanent in order for you to be aware of things, and you've admitted when pressed that there is no knowledge possible of awareness anyway. So your response to the claim is "I made something up to counter it but there's no way to prove it." And everything else you spit out hinges upon this.

[Anonymous No.19194369]

>>19193293
>Self = Atman = consciousness = awareness = knowledge (vijnana)
Oh no you made a mess. let me fix that for you
>emptiness = consciousness

[Anonymous No.19194389]

>>19191139
>recursive acronyms are satanic

[Anonymous No.19194452]

>>19186820
>Don't confuse the absence with the Thing.
>beyond
Are you ESL?

[Anonymous No.19194462]

>>19194283
It's the same autist vs whoever wants to talk about Buddhist texts. He follows a variety of what is effectively indo-thomism and which was popular in theosophist circles. He thinks Buddhism was "refuted" by Hindu scholasticism, but the great irony is that Advaita Vedanta gets called crypto-Buddhism by the non-mayavada schools of Hinduism. Maybe he ought to read Hegel. Those who fight monsters, etc. Outside of Jeetland, where Buddhism went extinct after Islam arrived, Buddhists evidently don't care about Advaita Vedanta "refuting" them, which is why no one cares here either.

[Anonymous No.19194491]

>>19194338
I've already read some buddhist shit, but It doesn't make these threads any more interesting. It's just the same bullshit every time. I rarely ever see an interesting post in these threads. I'm starting to think that maybe eastern philosophy is just a meme and that there's a reason why the west conquered it.

[Anonymous No.19194602]

>>19193809
>In Advaita Vedanta there is no knowledge except Brahman's opaque self-awareness of its own non-dual translucence.
Wrong, Brahman isn't opaque, and Brahman's Self-Knowledge is ultimate knowledge, while all particular knowledge is contingent upon this.
>It's sort of a "gotcha", as logic, inference, deduction, empiricism, etc are all invalid due to the inherent nihilism of the system.
That's wrong, Advaita admits 6 pramanas or means of knowledge as valid for gaining knowledge of the world and other empirical matters, these include inference. You don't know what you are talking about
>You can't know nuffin because you don't exist.
Advaita says that you are the Atman which DOES exist, so this is just dumb, like so much of your posts

>>19194338
>but guenonfag is a retard and keeps getting hung up on "karma 101" level stuff).
Says the retard who pretends to be knowledgeably about madhyamaka but who forgot the distinction between affirming negations and non-affirming negations, and who also confuses Abhidharma epistemology with Yogachara epistemology. I'm starting to think that you are just some process-philosophy tranny who read one or two books on Buddhism and who shills it because they see it as jiving with their worldview but without knowing much about it.

>>19194462
>He thinks Buddhism was "refuted" by Hindu scholasticism
It was

The Tibetan Buddhist historian Taranatha in his "History of Indian Buddhism" wrote:

>In all the eastern and southern regions the tÏrthikas (non-Buddhists) prospered and the Buddhists were going down . . . there lived two brothers who were the acaryas of the tÏrthikas. One of them was called Dattatrai (Dattetreya). He was specially in favour of samadhi. The second was Śaṅkarācārya, who propitiated Mahadeva. He chanted spells on a jar placed behind a curtain. From within the jar emerged Mahadeva up to his neck and taught him the art of debate. In Bhamgala he entered into debates. The elders among the bhikshus said, ‘It is difficult to defeat him. So acarya Dharmapala or CandragomÏ or CandrakÏrti should be invited to contest in debate.’ The younger panditas did not listen to this and said, ‘The prestige of the local panditas will go down if a debater is brought from somewhere else. We are more skilled than they are.’ Inflated with vanity, they entered into debate with Śaṅkarācārya. In this the Buddhists were defeated and, as a result, everything belonging to the twenty-five centres of the Doctrine was lost to the tÏrthikas and the centres were deserted. About five hundred upasakas (buddhist monks) had to enter the path of the tÏrthikas.

[Anonymous No.19194644]

>>19194357
>>Why even bother asking the question again
>Because your answers suck.
My question was regarding the refutations of sahopalambha that you failed to defend Buddhism against, not my answers regarding Advaita doctrine. These attacks on sahopalambha could be made by Christians, atheists or scientologists and they would all still ring just as true. You can't defend Yogachara doctrines against the arguments against it made in this thread, so you have been reducing to making up random false claims about Advaita and posting seething messages whining about Vedas and Brahmins.
>You're only ever "aware" of an object.
The awareness to which objects are presented is not ignorant of or blind to its own existence qua awareness, but this is always revealed to it regardless of objects.
>Objects are impermanent, along with the awareness of them.
You're totally unable to cite any demonstrable instance of awareness being non-permanent though
>Somehow you've lept to awareness needing to be permanent in order for you to be aware of things
No, just that is has to be non-momentary to align with how we experience the world. You either lack reading comprehension or you delight in lying.
>and you've admitted when pressed that there is no knowledge possible of awareness anyway.
Also wrong, awareness is not an object of knowledge, but it instead has immediate, unmediated, non-discursive and constant self-disclosure which counts as knowledge, but not in the same way as that objects of knowledge do, the self-disclosure of awareness is unconditioned knowledge, and all other knowledge is conditioned.

[Anonymous No.19194652]

>>19194602
"Winning" a debate and "refuting" something are separate notions. Debate is largely a matter of presentation and the wits of the debaters. One could lose a debate and still have a "correct" position due to defending it poorly, or one could win a debate arguing for something "wrong." Note that "prestige" was at stake and that the non-Buddhists are said to have "prospered" i.e. won over more people, prior to the debate. As for refutation, your favorite word, if a philosophy could truly be refuted it would disappear. Yet this almost never happens and what sustains or terminates a philosophy is the social component—do people value what is said and do they pass it on? Your own Vedas went out of fashion when Buddhism was dominant only to resurface later. Taranatha and subsequent Tibetans obviously did not find Advaita Vedanta to have refuted Buddhism, otherwise they surely would have given it up and not passed it on.

[Anonymous No.19194683]

>>19194644
More dense scholastic babble. You have no demonstrable instance of awareness being permanent, it all relies on stringing together further jargon to hide the absence of evidence. For me it is fine to say awareness is impermanent because I hold that the objects awareness recognizes are themselves impermanent. And since awareness must be aware of something, awareness cannot be permanent because what we are aware of is not permanent either. This is just a variety of thomism where you have an uncaused cause if we strip away all your scholastic babble. And if something were not caused it wouldn't be able to exist or further affect anything. And at the end of it all you are a theologian anyway, meaning all your doctrines flow from fiction and not anything we can mutually verify.

[Anonymous No.19194715]

>>19186189
I got into Eastern philosophy through Alan Watts, who is most likely the best dialogue between the Chinese texts and the odd translation of an old asain professor you can find who explains the spiritual understanding of Kanji in the same way Druids understood Runes.

I also translated the Dao De Jiang, which is full of essentially practically advice, similar to Five Rings, but liberals like the stupid poetry which is meaningless in a Germanic context.

Zhuzanji was certainly my favourite text, and Confucious was certainly a statist, but in the terms of controlling people through peaceful means, I think the Poems of the five classical texts have some great lit on the tyranny of tyrants over the common people who just wish to live peacefully.

Finally Wolf Totem was a great book on teh more spiritual side of Mongolian tribes, of course the Mongel state denies the worship of wolfs, however Europeans worshiped bears in the same way, the name bear meaning, the brown one, so fearsome to our ancestors. So I think wolf worship is very possible and I fully believe Jiangs account of his time in Inner Mongolian. Even better is that the pressed found teh text to be fascist lol, "better the peaceful desert over the fascist plains". one idiot said. Shows you how psychotic the liberal elite are.

Anyway I would have to say that teh Church has melded with Paganism, and if we want a deeper understanding of our own spirituality, not something stolen, then look at runes, look at writers who spent their time around nature, we are part of nature and its balance.

All things die, even the Roman Empire. Parasites are smart, dont let them into your home. Have the images of life around your home, Especially the Manju.
Also Journey to the East is a great novel.

[Anonymous No.19194754]

>>19194683
>More dense scholastic babble. You have no demonstrable instance of awareness being permanent
In order to demonstrate permanence, we would have to live eternally with same minds forever. Advaitins don't have to demonstrate permanence, because they don't care about proving their doctrines to others who are not initiated into Advaita, they only care about refuting attempts to disprove Advaita, and they do refute these attempts.
> it all relies on stringing together further jargon to hide the absence of evidence.
That there are no demonstrable instances of awareness changing or being absent is evidence in favor of awareness being permanent, but it doesn't prove it
>For me it is fine to say awareness is impermanent because I hold that the objects awareness recognizes are themselves impermanent.
Which doesn't prove anything about awareness because those objects are not awareness (the claim that they are identical with it has been extensively refuted in this thread already), so B changing doesn't show A is changing.
>And since awareness must be aware of something, awareness cannot be permanent because what we are aware of is not permanent either.
Wrong, because the constant self-disclosure of awareness counts as being aware of something (itself, non-discursively), you are just arbitrarily rejecting that awareness is self-revealing without providing any argument why, this is the fallacy of circular reasoning since you are citing your predetermined conclusion as the reason why that conclusion should be accepted. You can't into basic logic.
>This is just a variety of thomism where you have an uncaused cause if we strip away all your scholastic babble.
Wrong, because Advaita does not go out of its way to provide a positive proof for Advaita being true to skeptics unlike Thomism. Advaita is content with demonstrating its own complete logical consistency and with refuting attacks on Advaita and refuting other schools alike.
>And if something were not caused it wouldn't be able to exist or further affect anything.
Wrong, because the unconditioned basis of everything (Brahman) does not depend on anything else to exist, and by remaining as the basis of all the whole nexus of cause and effect depends upon It.
>And at the end of it all you are a theologian anyway
I consider that to be overly-excessive praise which I have to turn down and deny out of modesty.

[Anonymous No.19194765]

>>19186189
If you keep going eastwards you end up in the west

[Anonymous No.19194776]

>>19194754
>Advaita is content with demonstrating its own complete logical consistency
Who was being circular again? If something is internally consistent that just means it doesn't contradict itself as far as the people who believe it is internally consistent believe it is internally consistent. Has very little to do with reality. It's just an example of how reason or logic can be used to do violence to common sense.

[Anonymous No.19194798]

>>19194776
>Who was being circular again?
Only you
>If something is internally consistent that just means it doesn't contradict itself as far as the people who believe it is internally consistent believe it is internally consistent.
No, Advaita has a number of teachings, if it can be shown as Advaita does that none of these contradict each other or otherwise involve logical contradictions, then the system is demonstrated to be logically-consistent; since in all the Advaita writings they raise and refute every possible attempt at finding a contradiction in the general tenets. There are not that many tenets so it's not that difficult to anticipate and answer every possible objection. Many objections are derived from more fundamental and basic objections which were long ago already answered lucidly by the Advaitins.

[Anonymous No.19194809]

>>19194798
Ah yes your base tenets of the world being god wielding his power of illusion against himself and forgetting that the selves are really him and not the births, these are ironclad and unobjectionable. On this basis we know awareness is permanent.

[Anonymous No.19194814]

>>19186189
>no eastern philosophy chart
how do I know what to read, then?

[Anonymous No.19194824]

>>19194293
Its funny, I recently listened to an old talk by Alan Watts saying this very thing.

[Anonymous No.19194825]

>>19187361
>broo dmt entities are like gods!
youre the npc

[Anonymous No.19194830]

>>19194809
When your arguments get refuted over and over, you always end up seething and making up complete falsehoods to cope. It's truly pathetic.

>Ah yes your base tenets of the world being god wielding his power of illusion against himself
Wrong, Brahman in Advaita is 100% unaffected by maya, so He isn't "wielding it against himself"
>and forgetting that the selves are really him and not the births
Wrong, since Brahman is unchanging He never forgot anything and He is always forever liberated and unaffected by samsara/ignorance
>these are ironclad and unobjectionable.
Advaita doctrine is ironclad, what you just described is not Advaita doctrine but your own made-up bullshit which doesn't correspond to what is taught in any Advaita text.
>On this basis we know awareness is permanent.
Advaitins accept awareness as permanent on the basis of scripture which is admitted as a valid means of knowledge by them, they also completely refute every attempt to demonstrate that awareness is momentary, changing or non-permanent.

[Anonymous No.19194831]

>>19194814
Okay, so

Beginner - Alan Watts, Wolf Totem

Mid - Tao De Ching, Confucious audiobook (5 books is probs a bit much for a green leaf), Mencius cartoon (zoomers need those cartoons) 5 Chinese Classics, Zhuzanji

Advanced - Some old prof on youtube which you would only find in a blue moon explaining the divinity of kanji in the Tao de ching.

[Anonymous No.19194841]

>>19194831
Insane mode - Talk to the guy behind the gas station that masturbates on the old coke crates and huffs gold spray paint.

[Anonymous No.19194848]

>>19194830
>Wrong, Brahman in Advaita is 100% unaffected by maya
Then I guess neither has any efficacy and is the fever dream of a soma slurper

[Anonymous No.19194888]

>https://youtu.be/-GqsYA1pGqo?t=1444
Watch from ~24:00-40:00 minutes, basically ~15 mins of what entails "Freewill/Deterministism" and Eastern traditions.

I thought it was a nice explanation of Buddhist understanding of the whole "Free will/determinism" nonsense that much of western philosophy is bogged down upon. Anyone else got thoughts?

[Anonymous No.19194910]

>>19186317
mirrors

[Anonymous No.19194914]

>>19194848
>neither has any efficacy
There is nothing more efficient than Brahman, since there is nothing wasted and no effort expended when Brahman provides for maya to take place. Or do you mean causal efficiency? Brahman is beyond causation as That which causal relations are contingent upon, so Brahman cannot ultimately be accurately be described in terms that imply it is within the nexus of causation as something that interacts with other things also subject to causation; as this is an error of thinking.

[Anonymous No.19194944]

>>19191168
>That’s wrong, you are confusing attention with awareness. Attention involves the mind focusing on things, awareness does not focus or unfocus but is unchanging and just reveals the mind and its focusing or lack of focusing on things. Even when the mind fails to sufficiently focus and it makes a mistake like a Freudian slip, you are still fully aware at the moment you attempt to say the correct thing, at the exact moment you say the mistaken word (you hear yourself say the mistake) and immediately afterwards. You don’t suddenly black out and lose all sentience every time your mind is mistaken about something, but that’s pretty ridiculous and we never experience that.
then that's not true awarness, that's just the conceptual idea of awarness, which in reflection seems like is a constant thing, but it doesn't have any real pourpose in life or actual reality, it's like saying reality exist, indeed that's true, but that's just like saying a=a, you can't elaborate further, that's what kant called aperception, it just exist as a logical category of your mind, it dpoesn't have a substanceand certanly doesn't disprove anatta, on the contrary, just shows how the mind can articulate eternal things that don't actually exist

[Anonymous No.19194953]

>>19191966
>So? Even if transcendental time has a foundational priority over lived time, this does not make lived time "wrong" or "incorrect". It doesn't mean you can't "prove" anything about it, just that the "proof" is going to be found in a different phenomenological strata.
this pretty much usms up why advaita vedanta ends up creating a squad of dogmatic idolaters

[Anonymous No.19194965]

>>19194754
>In order to demonstrate permanence, we would have to live eternally with same minds forever. Advaitins don't have to demonstrate permanence
>they only care about refuting attempts to disprove Advaita
but in order to disprove buddhism you need to probe permanence, that's the whole point

[Anonymous No.19194972]

>>19194914
>Brahman is beyond causation
how he can then be related to the world of causation then?

[Anonymous No.19194990]

>>19194754
>Wrong, because the constant self-disclosure of awareness counts as being aware of something (itself, non-discursively), you are just arbitrarily rejecting that awareness is self-revealing without providing any argument why, this is the fallacy of circular reasoning since you are citing your predetermined conclusion as the reason why that conclusion should be accepted. You can't into basic logic.
but you're the one citing your own conclusion of what awarness should be as the reason why that conclusion should be accepted, that is awarness as a self revealing substance

[Anonymous No.19195000]

>>19194914
>Brahman cannot ultimately be accurately be described in terms that imply it is within the nexus of causation as something that interacts with other things also subject to causation; as this is an error of thinking
lmao "i've defined this such that it is necessary for everything but does nothing, and it's also god, and you're wrong for questioning whether i just made it up" thomist/10

[Anonymous No.19195006]

>>19194914
>Brahman is beyond causation
God did it. Brahman did it. Why does everything else matter?

[Anonymous No.19195110]

>>19195006
I am still trying to figure that out all these threads later. At some point in India there was a shitfit between a variety of different Hindu sectarians vs Yogacara Buddhists, chiefly Dharmakirti, Dignaga and their successors, as to who could produce the most turgid and mechanical "logical" defense of what they believed in, and it was finally 'resolved' by Shankara who cross referenced the Vedas to come up with "everything is an illusion of maya, which is caused by Brahman, who is also Atman, so nothing we experience is real, but it's not Buddhism because the Vedas technically agree with this, and did I mention this is definitely not Buddhism because of all the technical terms and nitpicks I have around consciousness, awareness, etc. which all come from Brahman and are therefore real but also not because lol maya." Any uninvested person would see the obvious influence of the "refuted" system viscously gunking up the framework of the system that was invented to argue with it (perceptions are not real but delusions of consciousness, hard monism, soteriology consists of realizing da trooth), and one would only need to be this scholastically meticulous precisely because the layman could hardly tell the two apart in that sense. There is no Hindu school more similar to Buddhism than Advaita Vedanta. Of course the major disagreements are an/atman and brahman vs sunyata, permanence vs momentariness, but scholastic debates set these aside to pick through minutiae.

[Anonymous No.19195169]

>>19194944
>then that's not true awarness, that's just the conceptual idea of awarness
No it's not, it's the true awareness present in all moments
>which in reflection seems like is a constant thing, but it doesn't have any real pourpose in life or actual reality,
It's purpose is to reveal itself without beginning and without end, and then as a consequence of this fact other things end up being revealed by this too
>it's like saying reality exist, indeed that's true, but that's just like saying a=a, you can't elaborate further
So? a=a is correct, as is the Advaita conception of awareness
>that's what kant called aperception, it just exist as a logical category of your mind
We can think about it as a mental concept at the same time that it exists in actuality as the truly existing awareness which illuminates/reveals that very thought about awareness which as a thought is a discursive mental image/representation of awareness
>it doesn't have a substance
'Substance' means many things to different people, this awareness has immutable and unconditioned existence
>and certanly doesn't disprove anatta
The proposal of the Advaita conception of awareness itself as a proposal doesn't refute anatta, but the arguments by Shankara and others which demonstrate that anatta as proposed by Buddhists is both illogical and fails to align with our actual experience DO refute anatta

>>19194965
>but in order to disprove buddhism you need to probe permanence, that's the whole point
No, that's wrong, because many of the arguments Advaitins use to refute Buddhism would remain true and just as valid if proposed by non-Advaitins, the arguments stand true on their own regardless of who makes them. The Buddhist claim that awareness is momentary can be easily refuted by pointing out that it doesn't align with our experience and is also illogical when analyzed, this refutes the Buddhist claim of awareness being momentary without first proving that awareness is permanent, you don't seem to understand how logic and argumentation works.

>>19194972
By being That which the false world of duality and causation is contingent upon, which provides by Its nature for falsity to be what falsity is.

>>19194990
I had been simply explaining the Advaita conception of awareness as self-revealing. Someone else attempted to disagree with it by asserting that awareness isn't self-revealing, and I responded by saying that they were committing a fallacy by citing their conclusion as a reason to accept that conclusion. I myself wasn't committing that fallacy since I wasn't citing the claim that awareness is self-revealing in order to support the conclusion that awareness is self-revealing. The reasons to accept it are a separate topic, as Advaitins have pointed out, to reject it leads to an illogical regress.

[Anonymous No.19195175]

>>19191966
>It doesn't mean you can't "prove" anything about it, just that the "proof" is going to be found in a different phenomenological strata.
There is no way to verify that what appears true of phenomenological time is true of transcendental time, you can attempt to use inference but this is fallible.

[Anonymous No.19195203]

>>19195006
>Why does everything else matter?
Can you be more specific?
>>19195110
>Any uninvested person would see the obvious influence of the "refuted" system viscously gunking up the framework of the system that was invented to argue with it
Ah but you see Buddhism is a series of flawed spinoffs of the Upanishads and their eternal doctrine of non-dualism, whether Buddhism is taken in its nihilistic, materialistic or subjective idealistic forms, all are indirect and inferior derivatives of the Upanishadic original

[Anonymous No.19195208]

>>19195169
>this refutes the Buddhist claim of awareness being momentary without first proving that awareness is permanent,
Let's assume awareness is not impermanent as "refuting" the impermanence of awareness implies. You're going to tell me not-not-x is not the same as x? The skeptic (Buddhist) already said x wasn't so, and you agree that you cannot prove x. So where is your disagreement? You won't defend x, you'll just defend not-not-x? Is this the power of your famous logic?

[Anonymous No.19195222]

>>19195203
>muh upanishads
Clearly not needed to make the argument unless you presuppose their importance. You're back to "Buddhism is wrong because it doesn't comply with the Vedas" which is the most irrelevant position possible to take in a debate with Buddhists.

[Anonymous No.19195243]

>>19195208
>Let's assume awareness is not impermanent as "refuting" the impermanence of awareness implies.
i.e. "lets assume awareness is permanent as refuting the non-permanence of awareness implies"
>You're going to tell me not-not-x is not the same as x?
I'm saying that Advaitins
1) acceptance the permanence of Awareness because of scripture
1a) which is further supported by this claim being consistent with our experience
2) Advaitins accept that its impossible to prove that anything is permanent, but they do accept that its possible to provide consistent and feasible accounts of how something can theoretically be permanent
3) The Advaitins provide refutations of the Buddhist claim that awareness is momentary using logic and recourse to experience
3a) The Advaitins don't consider that refuting the Buddhist claim that awareness is momentary is itself positive proof that awareness is permanent, it is instead just another fact that is consistent with awareness being permanent
>So where is your disagreement?
With the claim that awareness is momentary, which Advaitins refuted

[Anonymous No.19195255]

>>19195222
>Buddhism is wrong because it doesn't comply with the Vedas
The detailed answers to the question of why Buddhism is wrong have already been extensively discussed in Vedantic writings, in other threads on /lit/, and for Yogachara Buddhist claims like samhopalambha that was refuted here >>19189226 and >>19189232 for example. I was just casually stating a simplified summary of my opinion (a very small number of Buddhist schools and thinkers come somewhat close to the truth of Advaita, but as they say the exception proves the rule)

[Anonymous No.19195265]

Well, it's time for me to go to bed, I'm busy tomorrow. If I have the free time tomorrow I'll refute any remaining arguments against Advaita then too.

PEACE

[Anonymous No.19195273]

>>19195243
>Advaitins accept that its impossible to prove that anything is permanent, but they do accept that its possible to provide consistent and feasible accounts of how something can theoretically be permanent
Extreme cope. Your best answer is to be skeptical of skepticism. That ought to terrify you.

[Anonymous No.19195290]

>>19195255
>casual
>maintains a library of links to archived threads where no one replied to him about some minutiae (which in the grand scheme of things, as it ignores the elephant in the room of not being able to prove permanence but just being against impermanence because of scripture, amounts to thomistic babble)
Oh yeah you're taking this very casually

[Anonymous No.19195343]

>>19195169
>No it's not, it's the true awareness present in all moments
no, because awarness need a subject to be aware of objects, awarness can only with ausbject, and any subject capable of awarness has a finite life
>It's purpose is to reveal itself without beginning and without end, and then as a consequence of this fact other things end up being revealed by this too
no, because awarness does not reveals itself, awareness needs objects to be aware of, awarness can't be self aware, you canonly make a compound of singular moemnts of awarness and develop the idea of an abstract awarness, but that's just a mental construct, awarness by definition is an action upon an object not an object itself
>>19195169
>So? a=a is correct, as is the Advaita conception of awareness
that's not how logic works, f you want to make a logical articulation you need more than one premise, ex:A=B saying that awarness is aware is just a tautology
>We can think about it as a mental concept at the same time that it exists in actuality as the truly existing awareness which illuminates/reveals that very thought about awareness which as a thought is a discursive mental image/representation of awareness
not really, because the idea itself didn't show any sign of having a substantial existence, that's like saying the idea of lenght exist in some place
>'Substance' means many things to different people, this awareness has immutable and unconditioned existence
yeah liek nay other idea, needs to follow the principle of non contradiction, that doesn't mean that has an existence beyond being a category of perception
>The proposal of the Advaita conception of awareness itself as a proposal doesn't refute anatta, but the arguments by Shankara and others which demonstrate that anatta as proposed by Buddhists is both illogical and fails to align with our actual experience DO refute anatta
you still din't prove that, you keep avoiding actually engaging with the buddhist arguments and just keep repeating the same 4 or 5 advaita axioms
>areness is momentary can be easily refuted by pointing out that it doesn't align with our experience and is also illogical when analyzed
on the contrary, memory, parapraxis and the base state of reality as something that changes proves that awarness need to change and flux in order to keep up with reality
>y being That which the false world of duality and causation is contingent upon, which provides by Its nature for falsity to be what falsity is.
again you have no proof of that empirical or logical, that kind of metap´hysics need a leap of faith, to take for granted the need of a superior reality and the need of cause and efect to be something objective, which philsophy alreayd proved is not the case, sisnc ecause and effect ae created bythe suject not the object and even quantum physics since there's particles that don't work by the rules of cause and effect

[Anonymous No.19195371]

>>19195169
>By being That which the false world of duality and causation is contingent upon, which provides by Its nature for falsity to be what falsity is.
but if he's outside of causation, isn't that like sunyata? of somehting which isn't part of cause an effect can even be something? in that level of existence being something and being nothing is the same thing, since there's no structure of differentiation, somehting outside of cause and effect lacks, properties, and someting without propertioes is the same as nothingness

[Anonymous No.19195391]

Pseud Westerners won't rest until they destroy all Indian and East Asian traditions with their LARPing and distortion.

[Anonymous No.19195431]

>>19186317
With philosophy

[Anonymous No.19195449]

>>19186189
Being a Charvaka degenerate is the only way to live

[Anonymous No.19195494]

>>19195243
>I'll refute any remaining arguments against Advaita then too
>Advaitins accept that its impossible to prove that anything is permanent


lol

[Anonymous No.19195513]

Damn it seems the Advaita nigger won again. How do Chuddhists cope?

[Anonymous No.19195541]

>>19195169
>By being That which the false world of duality and causation is contingent upon, which provides by Its nature for falsity to be what falsity is.
i have a question, if brahma is beyond this world, why he cares about shudras not learning the advaita teachings?

[Anonymous No.19195569]

>>19187787
That's only true if you misunderstand time. Awareness is permanent, because without awareness, there is not. Time, like causality, is a figment.

[Anonymous No.19195605]

>>19195569
>. Awareness is permanent,
awarness is not permanent in a factual sense, changes in quality all the time and it ends when you die
awarness is just permanent as any other idea is permanent, just in alogical sense, it's permanent because ideas need to be permanent in order to make sense, awarness need sto keep his meaning, just like justice, love, even ideas like leg or dog, dog needs to alway refer to real dogs, and the idea of awarness needs to refeer to the real isntances of awarness, advaita vedanta get confused by this and think this logical permanence necesary for logical identity can be extrapolated to an actual permanence in reality itself, but the only thing permanent in reality is change, what advaita is doing is the first error buddhism wants to aress, the cosification of our logical categories, of our ideas and our mind, thinking that awarness which is just an action of our minds is actualy reality itself gets us ensalved to our own minds and limit our ways to think and develop ourself spirtually in this world in a huge way, when buddhism said that nohting has a self is not saying that nothing has meaning or susbtance, it's saying you're free from the false notions you make on your mind of what constitutes reality, that the thing you think constitue this reality are empty and you have the freedom to go above them,and the best way to free yourself from those chains is to free yourself from the ideas you create of an "absolute reality" which will never be the real tarscendnetal reality sicne your ofuscated mind will put bias and hidrances in that image of "pure reality" you constructed for yourself, open yourself to the world and stop creating trascendntal worlds is the best way to actually achieve a trascendnetal experience,

[Anonymous No.19195620]

>>19195605
>awarness is not permanent in a factual sense
What can you personally attest has been a part of reality (time, existence) that you did not perceive? Inherently, there is nothing. It is impossible.

[Anonymous No.19195653]

>>19187945
>Inferring its absence simply because of the lack of memory upon waking
That's what the entire army of psychologists and neuro-scientists and atheists try to convince humanity of being the case ever since 20th century.

[Anonymous No.19195658]

>Not western
>Not eastern
Perfect balance.

[Anonymous No.19195694]

>>19195169
>So? a=a is correct, as is the Advaita conception of awareness
no in this case it represents a tautology, it's a "truth"(an argument really) indifferent to content, which make it useless, devoided of any potential

>>19195620
if i have to guide my life by that kind of reasoning i'll end up falling into solipsism, the only way i ca feel myself from that is realising that i'm only aware thanks to things outside myself, doing that i also have to recognize that those things need to have an existnce outside myself and thus can exced me thus seeing other thing i can infer thing outside my awarness exist and a reality which desn't need my awarness also must exist, the paradoz of pure awarnes sis that if i negate things outside myself i end up negating myself, since i lack the proof that my awarness is inded aware of something, which can only be given by an object whch can be the focus of my awarness

[Anonymous No.19195696]

>>19195658
>jerusalem not eastern
bro i have bad news for you

[Anonymous No.19195705]

>>19195694
If you'd rather be wrong than solipsistic, then you'll never be able to establish even a basis for understanding.

[Anonymous No.19195749]

>>19194825
They're not gods, just archetypes

[Anonymous No.19195795]

>>19186394
sauce?

[Anonymous No.19195809]

>>19195705
being solipsistic is by definition a wrong point of view, means you can't extend your perception and notions outside of yourself

[Anonymous No.19195819]

>>19195658
>“If you want to be perfect, go, sell what you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.”
Don't own possessions. Pretty based.

[Anonymous No.19195831]

>>19195705
>>19195809
which also points out the fatal flaw of advaita vedanta and their notion of pure awarness, it blinds you to pure presence of relation which is just ar permanent as awarness and is fundamental to achieve any kind of knowledge, when you renounce to contemplate the relation between subject and object and only focus on the subject then you pretty much renounce to articulate any real form of knowledge, you just close yourself to you own bias and prejudices and end up a dogmatic mess

[Anonymous No.19196123]

>>19191168
>you are confusing attention with awareness
no, you're confusing awarness with consciousness, which is just the abstract version of awarness
>you are still fully aware at the moment you attempt to say the correct thing
indeed you have consciousness ingeneral, but not consciousness of your mistake, since if you were aware of your mistake, themistake couldn't happen, you can also say you're alive while you make that mistake, but taht doesn''t mean you'll be alive forever, having a general sense of consciousness doesnt prove that awarness or consciousness will last forever or exist outside of time´, as many people already pointed out, it just proves the ability of the mind to develop abstract concepts like "general awarness" or "consciousness"
another proof of that is that awarness is dependent of an object, it need something to be aware of, giving it away as an activity of the mind and not a thing on itself

[Anonymous No.19196291]

>>19186203
bros...

[Anonymous No.19196667]

>>19195273
>Your best answer is to be skeptical of skepticism. That ought to terrify you.
I have no reason to be skeptical about the self-evident existence of my own consciousness.

>>19195343
>no, because awarness need a subject to be aware of objects, awarness can only with ausbject, and any subject capable of awarness has a finite life
Awareness is intrinsically free in itself from the distinction of subject and object, and these distinctions are superimposed upon the undifferentiated reflexive unity of awareness by the mind, and awareness remains free of subject and object at the exact same moment the mind is superimposing this distinction on top of this undifferentiated foundational awareness, cloaking its nature from the undiscriminating. Awareness remains what its nature is (aware) independent of the mind assigning the role of subject to it, awareness doesn’t rely upon subject-object distinctions for awareness to always be present as awareness. In any case that claim which you made does not give an example of awareness being not present, so that didn’t actually refute the claim that awareness is present in all moments, in order to refute this you would have to cite a demonstrable instance where it’s not present but you failed to do so (and its impossible to do so)
>no, because awarness does not reveals itself
That’s wrong, awareness does reveal itself, and we know this because if awareness wasn’t revealed to itself, then in order for us to be aware of an instance of having awareness we would have to have this fact be revealed to or known by another awareness-instance; but since that awareness-instant is also not self-aware/self-revealing, it would not lead to the experience of being aware until revealed to another 3rd awareness instance, and this leads to an infinite regress that makes it impossible to have knowledge of anything; because there is never a final limit that allows the experience of being aware to take place.
>awareness needs objects to be aware of,
No, because awareness isn’t the subject and so it doesn’t depend upon the object (that which is opposed to the subject)
>awareness can't be self aware
It can be, your claim is refuted by the infinite regress that your position leads to
>you canonly make a compound of singular moemnts of awarness
They can’t be shown to be singular moments when the transition between them is seamless, you are looking at an unbroken continuum and mistakingly thinking that gaps in the things overlaid over it amount to gaps in the continuum itself; like thinking that space has gaps because physical objects do when space is actually seamless
>awarness by definition is an action upon an object not an object itself
Wrong, you need more ESL classes, Merriam-Webster states that awareness is a quality or state of being, and it also lists the root word of “aware” as an adjective and not a verb (action). In any case language is an approximation of reality, reality isn’t based on language.

[Anonymous No.19196669]

>>19195343
>>19196667
>ex:A=B saying that awarness is aware is just a tautology
If people foolishly deny that a=a (saying that awareness isn’t awareness without something else being present is like saying A isn’t A unless B is added to make it AB) then there is nothing wrong with restating it by emphasizing the principle of identity and saying that things dont depend on other things which are intrinsically different from them for their own identity.
>not really, because the idea itself didn't show any sign of having a substantial existence
Awareness has no sign visible to itself because awareness doesn’t appear as an object to itself, nevertheless all objects and signs presuppose knowing awareness
>needs to follow the principle of non contradiction
Nothing I’ve said violates the LNC
>you still din't prove that
Because arguments against anatta were not the subject of this thread, this has been extensively discussed in other threads already and the Buddhists were historically too intellectually impotent to muster a reply to the arguments of Vedantins and Shaivists against anatta
>you keep avoiding actually engaging with the buddhist arguments
I’ve replied to and debunked almost every one in this thread
>on the contrary, memory, parapraxis and the base state of reality as something that changes proves that awarness need to change and flux in order to keep up with reality
No it doesn’t, because memory isn’t awareness, so changes in memory don’t equal awareness changing, nor are cognitive errors awareness, so them happening doesn’t show awareness is changing either, something which isn’t A can never demonstrate that A is changing
>again you have no proof of that empirical or logical,
Because Vedanta is not concerned with providing proof to skeptics, they consider skeptics and atheists to be self-condemned fools. The idea being proposed itself contains no contradictions. Any system of logical proofs that tries to prove a metaphysical thesis about the structure of reality from the ground up involves errors and circular thinking and is easy to undermine as Advaitins like Sriharsa and Citsukha show, this is why no there is no metaphysics western or eastern that can infallibly provide positive proof of itself being true, and this is why its pointless to uncritically assume that Aristotelian or Kantian etc metaphysics accurately delimit how reality works (for starters, neither solves the Gettier problem, which was first described by Sriharsa)
>even quantum physics since there's particles that don't work by the rules of cause and effect
That doesn’t harm Advaita since they say that causation is only valid within conventional reality but isn’t present in ultimate reality.

[Anonymous No.19196839]

>>19195371
>but if he's outside of causation, isn't that like sunyata?
No, because sunyata means lack of intrinsic/independent existence (for Madhyamaka, intrinsic existence = independent existence which is not dependent on anything else); and the Advaitist conception of ultimate reality is that it is independent, i.e. not dependent on anything else; so by default it cannot fulfill the definition of sunyata/empty.
>(how can) somehting which isn't part of cause an effect can even be something?
Because cause and effect and worldly phenomena proceed from, i.e. depends upon the Infinite for their own relative being, but the Infinite isn’t reducible to particulars and it instead has its own unconditioned and transcendental existence which isn’t the same as worldly existence that is subject to spatial, temporal etc conditions.
>in that level of existence being something and being nothing is the same thing
No, because as the Taittiriya Upanishad says Brahman is truth (satyam), knowledge (jnanam), infinite (anantam). There is no knowledge/knowing present in nothingness.
>since there's no structure of differentiation, somehting outside of cause and effect lacks properties, and someting without propertioes is the same as nothing.
Why would something outside of cause and effect lack properties? A=A doesn’t depend on causation. Brahman is held by Advaita to only be absent of worldly qualities and not all qualities to the point of denying even awareness, and this is consistent with saying Brahman is jnanam because sentience is not locatable within the world as an observed object.
>>19195494
That Advaitins don’t provide positive proof of awareness being permanent is not a refutation of Advaita, because Advaita never claimed to provide positive proof of all its teachings to begin with; for some reason many people misunderstand this and wrongly believe Advaita tries to prove every little thing it maintains as true. Advaita instead simply presents an exegesis of the Upanishads that is logically consistent and logically defensible, and if people believe in the Upanishads then Advaita is relevant for them, and for non-Hindus or people who don’t care about the Upanishads Advaita isn’t relevant to them and traditional Advaita doesn’t care about them or convincing them of anything.
>>19195513
>How do Chuddhists cope?
By attempting to find solace in their own alleged non-existence, but this never does truly provide solace

[Anonymous No.19197010]

>>19195541
>i have a question, if brahma is beyond this world, why he cares about shudras not learning the advaita teachings?
Good question, according to Advaita, Brahman does not have the limitation of the mind and so He doesn’t think about anything. From what I remember from reading about the subject, there are no explicit proscribing of shudras studying the Vedas in the Vedas/Upanishads themselves, but these occur in later smriti texts like the Manusmriti, however different smriti texts contain different and contradictory rules regarding this, some less influential smriti texts say its okay for shudras to study the Vedas. For some reason which I am not aware of, the smriti texts which ended up being more influential within the Hindu tradition were those which prohibited shudras from studying the Vedas, and this is why the Brahma Sutras say that shudras should be prohibited from this, and why most Vedantic commentators including Shankara and Ramanuja in their bhasyas all agree with the Brahma Sutras and say that shudras should be prohibited from studying the Vedas. Shankara in his bhasya tempers this by saying that it is fully appropriate and acceptable for shudras to study and follow smriti texts like the Bhagavad-Gita, Puranas etc instead. There are plenty of Hindu sects and movements which reject the idea of restricting access to spiritual teachings/texts based on caste, some of which go back to at least the medieval era.

If we assume for a moment that the prohibition in the Manusmriti accurately reflects the Vedic teaching and speculate on why, one reason could be that it is part of ensuring a stable system that can endure for a very long time, that is by separating people into specialized classes you will possibly preserve the religious teachings over time more efficiently if you have a dedicated class of people whose mission in life it is to study and transmit to the next generation the scripture and associated esoteric doctrine; and that excluding people who are meant to help society function in other ways (by farming and providing food for the nation etc) ensures that its only the qualified specialist class who performs that role instead of people who might do that job incorrectly and lead to the scripture or teachings being corrupted or lost.

[Anonymous No.19197803]

>>19195605
>awarness is not permanent in a factual sense
This can’t be substantiated, its absence is impossible to demonstrate, the constant presence of awareness is consistent with but doesn’t prove that it’s permanent. And as another poster noted, you cannot even attest to the existence of anything which you are not aware of. If awareness is A, then anything which you can attest to as existing occurs at the same time as awareness, so every example you can cite becomes Ab, Ac, Ad, Ae, Af etc, awareness is always present in all those examples.
>changes in quality all the time
Nope, regardless of how efficiently or inefficiently the mind is perceiving or paying attention to something, awareness always invariably registers/reveals that very fact of being efficient or inefficient (otherwise you couldn’t even cite that as an example), so what you are describing as qualities of awareness are actually changes which inhere in the mind and not awareness, since the awareness which reveals that quality doesn’t itself as revealing awareness vary in any way.
>and it ends when you die
This is impossible to demonstrate
>the idea of awareness needs to refer to the real instances of awarness,
real ‘instances’ of awareness (they are not truly ‘instances’ since the constant continuum of awareness, like time, is seamless, impartite) are the A that is present in every Ab, Ac, Ad, Ae, Af etc
>advaita vedanta get confused by this and think this logical permanence necesary for logical identity
No, they don’t; you clearly don’t know what you are talking about. Advaita admits that impermanent objects like trees have their own identity as trees etc despite not being permanent. They just point out that considering awareness as momentary is illogical and contradicted by our experience.
>the only thing permanent in reality is change
That doesn’t make sense because anything that changes is non-eternal, and if it’s non-eternal it had to originate from something, and an infinite regress of contingent things cannot produce itself as a series or regress into existence from nothingness but can only originate via the eternal which is unchanging.
>that awarness which is just an action of our minds
Awareness isn’t an action, it’s invariably present amidst all actions as well as when actions are absent. Actions are initiated by the mind but awareness is never initiated but is always prior to any thought, conception or mental action.